Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Durham Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water Bill [Lords,]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Colne Corporation Bill [Lords,] To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Dover Harbour Bill [Lords,]

Rugby Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Wimbledon Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Worksop Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Read a Second time, and committed. Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the
Nottinghamshire, and Derbyshire Traction Act, 1928, relating to the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Company Trolley Vehicles," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Headlam; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.

Mr. McENTEE: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will consider the advisability of approaching local Governments with a view to setting up machinery for the purpose of securing statistical information showing the number of unemployed persons fit for employment in mills, factories, railways, and Government and private services?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I will forward the hon. Member's suggestion to the Government of India.

FOREIGN AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT (INDIAN OFFICIALS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of Indians now engaged in the Foreign and Political Department of the Government
of India who are employed in political work proper on the one hand, and in judicial, magisterial, police, or education duties, on the other?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer the hon. Member to the latest list of the Foreign and Political Department, which contains the information desired. A copy of the list has been placed in the Library.

BERAR.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether negotiations are now in progress with the Nizam Government regarding the Berars?

Sir S. HOARE: The negotiations are still in progress.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the object of these negotiations is?

Sir S. HOARE: The discussions are concerned with the future of the Berars supposing that an All-India Federation comes into being.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it the idea that the Bears should be handed back to the Nizam's Government?

Sir S. HOARE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave him on that point last week.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the Secretary of State realise that that answer did not provide me with any information?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have an assurance that no action will be taken in the future as regards the Bears without the consent of the people of the Bears?

Sir S. HOARE: I have already answered that question more than once; perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will refer to my answers.

BANGALORE STATION.

Sir A. KNOX: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether negotiations are now in progress with the Mysore durbar regarding the retrocession of the Bangalore civil and military station?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made in the negotiations between the Government of India and
the Mysore State with regard to the retrocession of the Mysore Assigned Tract to His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore; and when it is expected that a decision will be reached in the matter?

Sir S. HOARE: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statements which I made on the 1st May in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Sir A. KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement on this matter?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir.

STORES (PURCHASE POLICY)

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to implement the recommendation of the stores, printing and stationery sub committee of the Retrenchment Advisory Committee that an advisory committee be appointed to review the Government's stores purchase policy; and if so, when is the advisory committee expected to be set up?

Sir S. HOARE: The recommendations of the Retrenchment Advisory Committee are under consideration by the Government of India.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman do me the favour to answer the last part of my question:
and if so, when is the advisory committee expected to be set up?

Sir S. HOARE: I have not information on that point. I will look into it and let the hon. Member know.

SARDA ACT.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India, in view of the representations made to them by the All- India Women's Conference requesting an extension of the powers now conferred upon presidency magistrates and district magistrates to sub-divisional officers under the Sarda Act, intend to introduce legislation to amend the Sarda Act accordingly?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India have not informed (me that they propose to introduce the legislation suggested.

CONGRESSMEN (ARRESTS).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India what action the Government of India propose to take in view of the representations made to them by members of the Legislative Assembly alleging ill-treatment by the police of Congressmen arrested in connection with the recent Congress session?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India have asked the Government of Bengal to cause a full inquiry to be made into these allegations.

PRISONERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in. view of the fact that the civil disobedience movement in India has been suspended and in order to create a better atmosphere for co-operation with the Government of India in the consideration of and inauguration of the new constitution, he will give instructions for the release of all political prisoners?

Sir S. HOARE: The position of Government in regard to this matter was stated by the Government of India in a communique issued last week, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that, no matter what the Congress or the Congress leaders may do, no sort of reciprocity is to be expected from the
Government?

Sir S. HOARE: That is a very general question. I think the hon. Member had better look at the communique to which I have referred. He will see that we have dealt with the situation very fully in that communiqué.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask, further, whether, in view of the approach that has been made, His Majesty's Government are considering, perhaps, some other method of dealing with the problem and the anticipated psychology that might arise there from?

Sir S. HOARE: I prefer to take my stand upon the communiqué that has already been issued in India. I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it would create a nice atmosphere if he were to
comply with the suggestion contained in the last sentence of the question—that is to say, to release all political prisoners?

Sir S. HOARE: There are many considerations to be taken into account. The Government have made their statement as they see the position, and I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it desirable that the Government should secure as unbiased and favourable an atmosphere as possible in their consideration of the Round Table Conference proposals—the White Paper proposals—by acting on the suggestion contained in the question?

Sir S. HOARE: I think that on the whole it is best to leave the position as it was stated.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at an early date.

MR. A. CHAHIAVARTI.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any reports on the case of Mr. Ambcha Chahiavarti, of Chittagong, who was condemned to death in the Chittagong supplementary case; and whether notice of appeal has been given in this case?

Sir S. HOARE: The sentence of death has been commuted by the Calcutta High Court to one of transportation for life.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether Mr. Chahiavarti was not in point of fact arraigned before the courts on an issue that was rather minor as compared with that which was decided in respect of his colleagues, and whether, when Mr. Chahiavarti was away on account of iliness, some of his colleagues, arraigned on graver charges, were not given more lenient treatment, while he himself on a later occasion was sentenced to death?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not admit the accuracy of that description. If the hon. Member will put down another question on the subject, I will see if I can give him further details.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, may I ask if Mr. Chahiavarti has been transported outside the British Empire?

Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. Transportation has a technical meaning. It would not mean, so far as I am aware, transportation outside India.

EUROPEAN SITUATION (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. COCKS: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to lay papers regarding the Four-Power Pact?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): No, Sir. The conversations have not yet reached a point at which I can usefully approach the other parties with a view to the publication of documents, and I would ask hon. Members to believe that such publication at the moment would not be in the general interest.

Mr. COCKS: Are we to take it that this Pact is dead, or, if not, in a cataleptic trance?

DANZIG.

Mr. COCKS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the results of the deliberations of the League of Nations committee which has been considering the question of the revision of the Warsaw agreement regarding the free city of Danzig?

Sir J. SIMON: This Committee reports to the Council of the League of Nations; and the results of its deliberations have not yet been communicated to His Majesty's Government as a member of the Council.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of the grave situation which may arise after the 28th May, recommending the despatch of a mixed League force to Danzig, and not a Polish one?

Sir J. SIMON: I could not answer that question in reply to a supplementary question.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the present situation in Danzig, and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take?

Sir J. SIMON: I had an opportunity of discussing the general situation in Danzig with the League of Nations' High Commissioner a short time ago. [have no information regarding the most recent events beyond what appears in the Press, and I cannot make any statement at present.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider sending a British warship to Danzig? Also whether he will consider the acceptance by this country of a mandate for the last free city of what was Germany?

Sir J. SIMON: No question of a mandate, I think, arises under the constitution of the free city of Danzig. It takes more than one party to make a mandate. I understand that a visit of one of His Majesty's ships to Danzig has been arranged for at the end of June, forming part of the normal summer cruise. I see no reason to send one of His Majesty's ships earlier.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not desirable in the interests of policy generally that that visit to Danzig should be anticipated, so that the ship may be there in time for the revolutionary elections which are expected?

Mr. HANNON: Is it not the fact that the High Commissioner of Danzig has made a statement to the effect that no illegality has taken place?

Sir J. SIMON: I have read a statement in the Press to that effect, and I may tell the House that when I saw the High Commissioner a week or two ago he deprecated the alarmist reports which had been circulated as to the possibility of serious disorders arising in the free city during the elections, and I am sure that we all hope that his view may turn out to be accurate.

SPAIN (RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT).

Captain CAZALET: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Spanish Government on the subject of their failure to pay sums, amounting to some £1,400,000, owing for more than two years to the Santander-Mediterraneo
Company for railway construction work entirely financed by a British company, the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company, Limited; and what reply, if any, has been received from the Spanish Government?

Sir J. SIMON: On the 19th April, His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid handed a Note to the Spanish Minister of State intimating that the action of the Spanish Government in withholding the sums due to the Santander-Mediterraneo Railway was causing great prejudice to the British company which financed the construction of the railway. No reply has yet been received to this Note, but Sir George Grahame will continue to watch the matter carefully and take such steps as he properly can on behalf of the Anglo-Spanish Construction Company.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this railway has been in operation for two and a-half years, and that this debt has not been acknowledged by the Spanish Government?

Sir J. SIMON: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

PIRACY (CAPTURED BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Major HILLS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give the House about the British officers carried off by Chinese pirates?

Sir J. SIMON: The Japanese official handling this case is now in touch with the bandits through an emissary who is endeavouring to negotiate the release of the captives. Meanwhile, letters dated the 5th May have been received from each of them through another channel. They state that they are in fairly good health.

RAILWAY LOANS.

Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORD (for Mr. MOREING): 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that during the last few months sums exceeding four million dollars have been abstracted by the Chinese Government from the receipts of the Peking-Mukden Railway, which would normally have been available for the service of the Fengching redemption and the Shanghai-Hangchow-Ningpo loans and other indebtedness:
and whether he will represent to the Government of China that the restoration of credit cannot be achieved if revenues, earmarked for the service of debt, are diverted for other purposes?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir, I am aware that these appropriations have taken place. The matter has already been the subject of strong representations to the Chinese Government in which objection was taken to such diversions so long as principal or interest on any of the loans secured on the railway funds remains unpaid. The effect of such diversions on the financial credit of China has also been pointed out.

Mr. RUTHERFORD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that part of the Peking-Mukden Railway which runs through Manchuria is paying its dues to the British bondholders?

Sir J. SIMON: I shall require notice of that question.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what reply the Chinese Government have made to those representations?

IRAQ.

Major HILLS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who is responsible, Since the conclusion of the Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 1930 and annexe, for maintaining internal order in Iraq; whether any British forces have been used during the last two years in internal operations against the Kurds; and under what circumstances and by whose authority can such operations now be conducted?

Sir J. SIMON: The Anglo-Iraq Treaty of 1930 came into operation only on the entry of Iraq into the League of Nations on the 3rd October, 1932. Under the treaty responsibility for the maintenance of internal order in Iraq now rests with the Iraqi Government alone. British forces have not been engaged in any operations in Iraq Since June, 1932, when units of the Royal Air Force cooperated with the Iraqi army to restore order in a part of Iraqi Kurdistan. Under the treaty any similar operations in future are to be undertaken by Iraqi forces acting under the authority of the Iraqi Government.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly repeat the date? Some of us thought that he referred to June, 1933.

Sir J. SIMON: I mentioned the Anglo-Iraq Agreement of 1930, which came into operation in 1932. British forces have not been engaged in any operations Since June, 1932.

DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.

Mr. COCKS: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the declaration of the German Foreign Minister that, whatever the result of the Disarmament Conference, Germany intends to re-arm, thereby breaking the terms of the Treaty of Versailles; and whether he can make a statement as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government on this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: I have seen the article to which the hon. Member refers. I can make no further statement pending the resumption of the General Commission of the Disarmament Conference on Thursday.

Mr. COCKS: May we take it that the statement made in another place represents the views of the Government?

Sir J. SIMON: I think I have already completely answered the question.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May we have a definite answer? Does the statement made in another place convey the attitude of the whole Government and the Cabinet?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no reason to hesitate to answer the question, but I should prefer to have it on the Paper in the ordinary way.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, among the various steps that could be taken, the possibility of re-summoning the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers with a view to obtaining security for the future?

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement in reference to the Disarmament Conference?

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that a meeting of the General Commission, which was to have been held to-day, has been postponed by the direction of the President, Mr. Henderson, until Thursday, owing to the recall of the German delegate to Berlin and the meeting of the Reichstag on Wednesday. In these circumstances, I prefer to make no statement at the present juncture.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest opportunity of making a statement in this House in connection with any new departure in regard to policy at the Disarmament Conference, rather than allow the Press to contain all kinds of garbled reports on the subject?

Sir J. SIMON: I think that His Majesty's Government throughout have done their best to keep the House informed as to matters of fact. I cannot, of course, be responsible for anticipations elsewhere.

Mr. LANSBURY: The point I wish to press is that if a question is put to him on Thursday, will he make as full a statement on the situation as is possible to be made? I am not asking that he shall make any statement which he considers would be impolitic, but as clear a statement as is possible so that alarmist rumours will not be spread abroad as they are being spread just now?

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure that responsible persons in all quarters of the House will want to discourage alarmist rumours. I cannot give an undertaking as to the statement I will make on Thursday, but I willingly agree that if the situation is one which calls for a statement, a statement will certainly be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINE (JUTE IMPORTS).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 19.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what proportion of the total import of jute manufactures into the Argentine in the first three months of 1933 was of United Kingdom origin?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that the information is not yet available.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that 80 per cent. of our purchases from the Argentine are in jute wrappers, and that only 8 per cent. of that jute is of United Kingdom origin? Further, what steps is he taking to get this trade, which would give work to 8,000 people now unemployed?

Lieut-Colonel COLVILLE: Those are the figures that I am trying to verify. In answer to the last part of the question, the matter has not been lost sight of.

Mr. HANNON: Was this matter considered when negotiations were in process with the Argentine?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not possible for the Minister to get the same concession here from the Argentine as we got from the Danes?

Miss HORSBRUGH: Will they get the further concession of all the jute put round goods coming here from the Argentine, and not merely meat?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Lady must await events.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORT PROHIBITION).

Mr. PIKE: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total value and nature of goods imported from Russia Since 13th April, 1933, to the nearest available date; and the total receipts from licence duty paid in accordance with Part II, Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933, in respect of such importations?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In reply to the first part of the question, I regret that the information is not available, as statistics of imports into the United Kingdom are compiled only in respect of calendar months. As regards the second part of the question, no fees are being charged at present to importers in respect of licences issued under Section 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933.

Mr. PIKE: If no fees are charged, what restrictions are there against importation?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Each application for a licence is considered on its merits.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say if his Department is making any effort to get the statistics of the Department into such a form that Ministers may give more adequate answers in these matters than they are giving at present?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: No, Sir. It has not yet been proved that they are inadequate.

Mr. PIKE: Does my hon. and gallant Friend say that no licence duty is at present being charged? If so, can he say if the volume of imports from Russia without licence duty payment really justifies the existence of Part II of the Act at all?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, indeed it does.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there a special prohibition in operation against Russian trade at the moment?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, and the House has been informed fully of the special reasons why it applies.

Mr. PIKE: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether licences under Part II of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933, are granted to import goods of a stated value irrespective of their classification, or whether licence must be obtained for each classification irrespective of their value?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Licences under Section 2 of the Russian Goods (Import Prohibition) Act, 1933, are only granted in respect of particular consignments and each application is dealt with on its merits.

Mr. PIKE: Does the Minister mean that they are granted only in so far as the classification of the importation is concerned, or are they granted on the consignment itself irrespective of classification? Will he answer the latter part of the question?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I think that my original answer explains that in respect of particular consignments, they are considered on their merits, and has regard to the statement which I made a few days ago as to the line by which the Government proceed in dealing with special licences.

TIMBER IMPORTS (DUTY).

Mr. LEES-JONES: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the Import Duties Advisory Committee has reported on the application of the timber trade of this country for duties on imported timber; when the report will be made public; and if, in the negotiations for trade agreements with Sweden and Norway, the timber trades need for duties will be taken into consideration?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee has just been received and I cannot say when it will be possible to publish it. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure my hon. Friend that during the negotiations with Sweden and Norway, careful consideration was given to the interests of the timber trade in this country. I may add that it is hoped to publish the agreements with these two countries within the next few days.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the report of the Advisory Committee conflicts in any way with the terms of the agreements?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am afraid I cannot forecast what will be in the agreements, but they will be published within the next two or three days.

Mr. MOLSON: Will these agreements be put into force during the currency of the Tariff Truce?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, do not think that there is anything to prevent their being put into force as soon as they can be ratified.

IMPORTED KERB-STONB (DUTY).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will assure the House that in the approaching trade agreement with Norway he will refuse to give a guarantee against increasing the duty on kerbstone?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible for me to indicate the terms of the trade agreement with Norway in advance of the general publication of its terms.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. LEVY: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if, in any arrangements as to a Tariff Truce, he will reserve the right of this country to deal with the problem of Japanese competition in textiles both in this country and other parts of the British Empire?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I can assure my hon. Friend that the point which he raises will be constantly borne in mind by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LEVY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the long hours worked by, and the low rate of wages paid to, the Japanese workmen constitute such a menace that no Western country can compete with them?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The question of Japanese competition is very prominently before us at the present time, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be borne in mind in relation to the question which he has asked.

Mr. HANNON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend in consultation with some of our Overseas Colonies, the West Indies, for example, where this competision is peculiarly felt?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, we are in consultation with a number of the Overseas Colonies on the question.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that this matter is being further considered in relation to the Tariff Truce, may we expect to get a definite settlement before very much longer?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer previously given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the proposed tariff truce, it is the intention of the Government not to act for the time being on recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee involving new or increased duties?

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the terms of the proposed tariff truce would, if adopted, prevent the import Duties Advisory Committee, during the continu-
ance of the truce, recommending, and the Treasury imposing, any additional duties?

Mr. REMER: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that in any tariff truce negotiations care will be taken to ensure that the silk and rayon industry shall not be deprived of the opportunity promised to it by the Government to apply for protection through the machinery of the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Mr. BERNAYS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an undertaking that this House will not be asked to approve of any recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee for increased tariffs while the Economic Conference is in session?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As the Prime Minister has already explained, the object of the truce is to discourage the starting of new upward initiatives in the adjustment of tariffs and other economic devices, and it is not intended to prevent the completion of operations already begun. Acting in this spirit, the Import Duties Advisory Committee will continue to carry out their statutory obligations, including the receipt and examination of applications for new or altered duties, but the Government will, during the operation of the truce, refrain from making orders for increases of Customs duties in respect of any applications which had not been received by the committee before the 12th May.

Mr. LEVY: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, am I to understand with regard to the Silk Duties—if I may specifically mention them—that the Advisory Board will make their recommendations and that the tariff truce will not prevent them being put into force, owing to the space of time which has to elapse before the Financial Resolution can fructify?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In the case of the particular duties mentioned by the hon. Member, the application was made before the 12th May.

Mr. LEVY: Thank you.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (FOREIGN CARTRIDGE CASES).

Captain STRICKLAND: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he is now in a position to give the House further information with regard to the evasion of the Merchandise Marks Act by the importation into this country of foreign-made cartridge cases not conspicuously showing an indication of origin, as laid down in the joint memorandum on that Act issued by the Board of Trade and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise; and what action he proposes to take?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this subject, but I am giving careful consideration to the representations made, and I hope to communicate further with my hon. and gallant Friend at a very early date.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Sir ASSHETON POWNAIL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long the negotiations with Portugal on the question of flag discrimination have been continuing; and what is their present position?

Sir J. SIMON: Representations were first made to the Portuguese Government on this subject in January, 1927. Since then the Portuguese Government have abolished the discrimination in port dues in Portugal and the adjacent islands in favour of Portuguese shipping, and have announced their intention in principle to abolish the rebate in the Customs Duties levied in Portugal and the adjacent islands on goods carried in Portuguese vessels. Up to the present the rebate has been reduced from 10 per cent. to 0 per cent. of the import duties and from 20 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the export duties. His Majesty's Government attach great importance to this question, and discussions are still proceeding with the Portuguese Government.

Sir A. POWNAIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider denouncing our Treaty with Portugal if these negotiations, which have already lasted six years, do not soon come to a satisfactory conclusion?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member may rest assured that the matter is being pursued in all its aspects, and I am not without hope that it will lead to some satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting an 80 per sent, import duty on port?

RUBBER BOOTS (IMPORT DUTY).

Mr. THORNE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties caused to wholesalers and retailers dealing with the sale of foreign rubber boots in connection with the increase of tax to 4s. per pair, and that in consequence of no warning being given of the increase in the duty many wholesalers and retailers are suffering financial losses owing to their commitments in respect to orders; and the reasons why no warning was given to those connected with the trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): If the hon. Member will refer to the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee made on the 23rd September, 1932 (Cmd. 4176), he will see that warning was given of the possibility of further duties on rubber footwear being recommended in the event of a continuance of abnormal competitive conditions.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case under the existing law that the importer is entitled to add to the contract price the amount of any duty subsequently imposed?

Dr. BURGIN: The imposition of an increased duty is always a matter for the buyer's account.

Mr. ATTLEE: Is the hon. Member aware that the increased price kills the market?

Mr. WALLACE (for Sir PERCY HARRIS): 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements can be made for the exemption from the new duties on rubber boots of goods shipped from the country of origin before the date of the imposition of the duty, where evidence can be substantiated that contracts had been made to sell at prices which made no provision for such duties?

Dr. BURGIN: There is no provision under which, in the circumstances described by the hon. Member, remission could be granted of the additional duties on rubber boots imposed under the Import Duties Act, 1932. As regards the position of the seller under a contract
made before the imposition of a new Customs import duty, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the provisions of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1901.

MEAT IMPORT LICENCES.

Sir A. POWNAIL: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis licences to import will be distributed between the various meat shippers in cases of regulated imports such as that contained in the Argentine Agreement?

Dr. BURGIN: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, but, speaking generally, licences to import meat under the Ottawa Agreements Act have been issued to existing firms, which, it is understood, retain their previous shares in the trade. As a rule it has not been found necessary to issue licences in respect of specified quantities.

Sir A. POWNAIL: Can the Parliamentary Secretary Bay what will happen in regard to new firms in the case of business increasing? Will the list be stereotyped as for the last few years, or will there be scope for expansion?

Dr. BURGIN: As long as a firm holds a licence, that is the only requirement it has to comply with, as far as the Government are concerned. The share in the trade is a matter of negotiation between the parties concerned in the trade itself.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the Parlia-mentary Secretary say under what authority licences are to be granted?

Dr. BURGIN: Under the authority of the Board of Trade.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member say when the Board of Trade obtained authority to grant licences to import into this country?

Dr. BURGIN: By the Act itself.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask which Act?

Dr. BURGIN: The Ottawa Agreements Act.

LINSEED OIL (DRAWBACK ON EXPORT).

Mr. WALLACE (for Sir P. HARRIS): 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements have been made for drawbacks on export on linseed oil used for the manufacture of linoleum?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Import Duties Advisory Committee have recommended schemes for the allowance of drawback on export of manufactured goods containing linseed and linseed oil, and it is hoped to complete the necessary arrangements for putting the schemes into force at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING.

Mr. PETHERICK: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of recent cases of inadequate fines being imposed in the case of foreign trawlers caught fishing inside the three-mile limit; and if he will amend the law to increase the present scale of fines for such offences?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): Certain French vessels were recently convicted of illegal fishing by means of crab pots in the vicinity of the Scilly Isles, and penalties duly imposed, but I am not aware that any foreign trawlers have recently been convicted of illegal fishing in British waters. The question of amending the law relating to the penalties inflicted for illegal fishing in territorial waters is under consideration.

Mr. PETHERICK: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been drawn to the prevalence of the destruction of the nets of British fisher men recently by foreign trawlers, and notably to the case of the destruction of the nets of the Mevagissey fishing-boat "Kate," on 23rd February, 1933, by the French steam trawler "Congre," B 1,315, and "Jean Dore," B 1,384; and what action he has taken or proposes to take?

Major ELLIOT: My attention has been drawn to the particular case referred to, which is being taken up with the French authorities. I have no evidence to bear out the suggestion contained in the first part of the question but shall be happy to consider any particulars which my hon. Friend cares to submit.

DANISH TRADE AGREEMENT.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the quantity of fish to be imported from Denmark under the provisions of the
Danish trade agreement includes not only the direct imports from Denmark but also the quantity of fish, not of British taking, brought into the United Kingdom from the deep seas fisheries in Danish-owned ships?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Danes are clear as to the implications, having regard to the fact that we have never included imports of Danish fish from deep seas fisheries among our imports from Denmark?

Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).

Major DESPEIMCER-ROBERTSON: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet taken any steps to consult with the countries importing processed milk products into Great Britain, with a view to arranging for a restriction of such products in our market?

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make a statement with regard to the action which he intends to take to pro mote the welfare of the British dairy industry; and whether, in view of the menace to that industry from the increasing stocks of condensed skimmed milk in this country, he will give early consideration to this branch of agriculture?

Major ELLIOT: Following the Debate in this House on Wednesday of last week, I invited representatives of foreign countries from which we import processed milks to meet me on Saturday, 13th May, when I discussed the position with them. Having regard to the increasing supplies of home-produced milk now being diverted to manufacture, to the accumulation of stocks in manufacturers' hands and to the urgent need of providing market-access for the larger home output, I felt bound to ask, as an emergency measure, for a substantial reduction in imports of tinned cream, of condensed whole and condensed skimmed milk and of milk powder in order to establish more stable conditions on the market in the interests of all concerned. A further meeting will take place in the
course of a few days and I have every hope that an adequate measure of voluntary co-operation will be forthcoming in this further effort to deal with a supply-situation which was rapidly getting out of hand. I should add that, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, I am arranging for an early consultation with Dominion representatives.

Mr. HANNON: Would any injury be done to any industry if condensed skimmed milk were excluded altogether?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the exact proportion of imported process milk products to the whole products produced?

Major ELLIOT: Not, I am afraid, without notice.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it represents about 4 per cent.?

Major ELLIOT: Surely, it is better to deal with 4 per cent. than with nothing at all.

Mr. LAMBERT: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any, and if so, what representations have been made to New Zealand and Australia for the restriction of milk product exports to Great Britain?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Arising out of representations by the High Commissioner for New Zealand as to the general fall in wholesale price levels in the case of butter, discussions have taken place with His Majesty's Governments in the Commonwealth of Australia and in New Zealand with a view to the possibility of the regulation of imports, in a manner satisfactory to all parties. It will be appreciated that, in view of the Ottawa Agreements, the regulation of imports into the United Kingdom of butter, cheese and other milk products from the Dominions before August, 1935, could only take place by voluntary arrangement. The discussions are not yet complete and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has just indicated, a further consultation with Dominion representatives is being arranged.

Mr. LAMBERT: In view of the urgency of the case, can the right hon. Gentleman say when some decision will be arrived at?

Mr. THOMAS: A decision will be arrived at as early as possible, and, from our point of view, the earlier the better.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that hit, right hon. Friend supported the Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, yes, quite justifiably.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (INCOME TAX).

Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Limited, established under the provisions of Part I of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, decline to allow the deduction of Income Tax from the interest portion of half-yearly instalments in repayment of loans; and if he will state by what authority this is done?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In order that farmers who are exempt from Income Tax may be relieved from the necessity of accounting to the Revenue for the tax on interest paid to this corporation, arrangements have been made under which all such interest may be paid without deduction of tax. Where the farmer is not exempt, the appropriate relief from tax is given to him by the Inland Revenue authorities and he is thus placed in the same position as if he had deducted tax. I am not aware that any difficulty has arisen in this matter, but if my hon. Friend knows of any case where the arrangement has caused inconvenience, I will gladly look into it.

GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS (WINDOW CLEANING).

Mr. McENTEE: 25.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, during the past two years to window cleaners while engaged on Government buildings in London, and the ages of those involved?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The number of fatal accidents at all buildings in my charge was three, and the ages of the
employes concerned were 31, 20 and 18, respectively. All window-cleaning work for this Department is let to contract, and I have no data as to accidents, other than fatal accidents, that may have been sustained by the workpeople employed by the contractors.

Mr. McENTEE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any comparison between the figures he has just read and previous years?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: For previous years I should have to have notice.

Mr. HICKS: Are the contractors in every case insured for the purpose of compensation to their employes? Is it a condition of giving the contract?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the Employers' Liability Act applies in every case to window cleaners employed by the kind of firm we employ. If the hon. Member will put down a specific question as to what is included in our form of contract, I will give him a definite answer.

Mr. HICKS: It is not a question of the Employers' Liability Act covering them. The point is as to the stability of the contractor, and whether he insures for the purpose of compensation under Workmen's Compensation, Employers' Liability, and the Common Law?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I had better have a question down, but, of course, we are responsible for Government buildings all over the country, including some very small ones, and it is difficult to compare small country firms with large Metropolitan ones.

Mr. McENTEE: 26.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the increase in the number of juvenile and inexperienced workers engaged in window cleaning by contractors to the Government Since the date of an agreement entered into setting up a rate of wages for adults, he will make inquiries as to whether the fair wages clause is being observed?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not customary to make special investigation into the observance of the fair wages clause unless a complaint against a particular contractor is received, and there are, prima facie, grounds for an allegation that a breach has been committed. I shall be glad to investigate any specific
complaints if the hon. Member will kindly furnish me with the necessary particulars.

Mr. McENTEE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if a contract is made, it is part of the Government's duty to see that it is carried out, and, if it is carried out in every other respect, why not in respect of the fair wages clause?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is the duty of the inspectors to report cases, but necessarily, points in connection with the enforcement of the fair wages clause must depend on the nature of the particular cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for unemployment insurance benefit have been turned down by the umpire on the ground that the unemployment was due to a trade dispute in the mining industry from July, 1932, to the present time?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Hudson): Between July, 1932, and 12th May, 1933, the umpire gave 56 decisions disallowing claims from applicants in the coal mining industry on the ground that the trade dispute disqualification applied. Some of these were test cases and the number of individuals affected cannot be given.

Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the so-called trade disputes were due to the employers trying to reduce wages?

RELIEF SCHEMES, WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. SMITH: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are employed at the present time by the West Riding County Council on schemes of work for the relief of unemployment; and the number so employed at the end of April, 1930, 1931, and 1932, respect tively?

Mr. HUDSON: Except for 31 men at the end of April, 1931, no persons were employed under the West Riding County Council on State assisted schemes specifi-
cally for the relief of unemployment at any of the dates mentioned in the question, although there were 646 and 1,674 men respectively employed under the council at the end of April, 1930 and 1931, on works of improvement and new construction on classified roads and bridges assisted from the Road Fund; the corresponding figures for April, 1932 and 1933 were 884 and 310, respectively.

HOUSING (SUBSIDY, SCOTLAND).

Miss HORSBRUGH: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the revision of the housing subsidies, which is due to take place after the 1st October next, he can state the dates by which houses must be completed in order to earn the present rates of subsidy?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a Circular issued on the 12th instant by the Department of Health for Scotland to all Scottish local authorities, intimating that it is contemplated that houses otherwise eligible and completed by the 31st March, 1934, under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, or by the 30th September, 1934, under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, will qualify for subsidy at the present rates.

FOREIGN VISITORS (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the persons of German nationality, who are members of the Nazi or Fascist party using the Park Gate Hotel as a meeting place, have been requested to give an undertaking not to engage in Fascist propaganda in this country; whether they have been granted passports for an unlimited period; and can he inform the House how many German nationals who are members of this Fascist organisation possess passports enabling them to remain this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gil-mour): This question is based on a misunderstanding of the principles on which the Aliens Act is administered. Every
day throughout the year on an average about 900 foreign visitors, including about 100 Germans, come into this country for visits of varying length. It is not the practice to inquire to what political party these visitors belong, or to ask them to give any undertaking as to political propaganda. For the purpose of the administration of the Aliens Act the political views of foreign visitors are only of importance in those comparatively rare cases of aliens whose political creed includes the over-throw by violence of constitutional government in the United Kingdom, and who, if allowed to come here, will use the opportunity to advocate and organise disorder, rioting and insurrectionary methods in this country. Of the views which an alien holds as to the Government of his own country it is not usually necessary or practicable to take account, and I do not know how many of the several thousand Germans who are at the present moment in this country are members of the Nazi party. As I stated in reply to a question on the 11th instant, the leader and secretary of the Group, who are representatives of German business firms, have been in this country Since 1927 and 1925 respectively.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that only Communists are invited not to indulge in propaganda, and that the modern democrat known as the Nazi is admitted without any obligation at all?

Sir J. GILM0UR: I have made it quite clear that only those whose political creeds obviously are declared to be the violent upsetting of orderly government are ever excluded from this country.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the representatives of the Nazi movement as people who do not insist upon violence as their basic method of conducting business 1
Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do they not boast of upsetting the existing constitutional regime?

Sir J. GILM0UR: If anyone advocates these things in this country, then we shall have reason to take steps.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House, for its information and education, whether he discriminates between a Communist and a member of the Nazi movement?

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Does not the Nazi Government claim to have achieved a revolution in Germany, and do they not extol the use of force against constitutional method? Is not that the case?

Mr. MAXTON: Having regard to the Home Secretary's reply, if I renew my application for the admission of Mr. Trotsky, will he reconsider his negative reply in the light of the reply that he has given to-day?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I have always explained to the House that each individual case will be considered on its merits. I had good reason for refusing that application.

Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what are the merits of the Nazi Government and the Nazi party?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BEER DUTY (AGREEMENT).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the agreement entered into with the brewers, he will state whether the agreement stipulated for a definite minimum proportion of malt made from home-grown barley to be used by all brewers and, if so, what proportion; and what steps are being taken to ascertain that all brewers are observing the spirit of the agreement?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the terms of the letter from the Chairman of the Brewers Society which my right hon. Friend read in the course of his Budget Speech; with regard to the second part, the Ministry of Agriculture is in touch with the brewing and other industries on the subject.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Can the hon. Member say, so far as he knows, whether this agreement is being carried out explicitly by the brewers?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that the new foreign crop will not arrive in this country for some months?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reply to both questions, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in touch with the interests concerned.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.

Mr. T. SMITH: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of revenue obtained by direct and indirect taxation for the financial year 1930–31 and the estimated percentages for the year 1933–34?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:



Indirect Taxes.
Direct Taxes.



Per cent.
Per cent.


1930–31
34.23
65.77


1933–34 (estimated)
39.16
60.81

AMERICAN STATES (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Vice-Admiral CAMPBELL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question of the debts owing to this country by various States in America was raised during his recent visit to Washington?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir.

IRISH FREE STATE.

Mr. LUNN: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount outstanding up to the latest convenient date in connection with the land annuities and other funds as a liability of the Irish Free State Government to the Government of the United Kingdom; and what is the amount received from the duties imposed on Irish Free State produce?

Mr. LAMBERT: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount is due from the Irish Free State to the Treasury; and what amounts have been collected under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The sums withheld by the Irish Free State Government amounted to £1,750,000 by the 15th July, 1932, when the Special Duties came into force. The sums with-
held between that date and the present time amount to £3,200,000. The revenue collected up to the 6th May in respect of the duties imposed under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, and the Import Duties Act, 1932, on goods imported into the United Kingdom from the Irish Free State was approximately £2,891,000.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what Orders he proposes to take to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to conclude the Report stage of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Bill by Eleven o'Clock. The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended in order to obtain the Third Reading of the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.']

The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 37.

Division No. 166.]
AYES.
[3.39 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howitt. Dr. Alfred B.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Denville, Alfred
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Dickie, John P.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Donner, P. W.
Janner, Barnett


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Doran, Edward
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Dower, Captain A. V, G.
Ker, J. Campbell


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent. Dover)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kimball, Lawrence


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, Hubert John
Knight. Holford


Balniel, Lord
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Knox. Sir Alfred


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.8. (Portem'th.C.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Benn. Sir Arthur Shirley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lees-Jones, John


Bernays, Robert
Fermoy. Lord
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Levy, Thomas


Blindell, James
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Borodale, viscount
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle. Sir Francis
Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Boulton, W. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Glyn, Major Raiph G. C.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goff, Sir Park
Mabane, William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goldie, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O- (Ayr)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Burghley, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of w.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Graves, Marjorie
McEwen, Captain J. H. P.


Burnett, John George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
McKie, John Hamilton


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Campbell-Johnston, Matcolm
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maitland, Adam


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hammersley, Samuet S.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hanbury, Cecil
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hartland. George A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mills. Sir Frederick (Leyton. E.)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, Harold p.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Clarke, Frank
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Headlam, Lieut. Col. Cuthbert M.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Cooke, Douglas
Heneage. Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Ceeper, A. Duff
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cowan. D. M.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Munro, Patrick


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph


Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)
Hore-Belisha. Leslie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Horobin, Ian M.
Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cross. R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Nunn, William


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Patrick, Colin M.


Peake, Captain Osbert
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Petherick, M.
Scone, Lord
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


powNail, Sir Assheton
Simon, Rt, Hon. Sir John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Raikes. Henry V. A. M.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smithers, Waldron
Warrender, Sir victor A. G.


Reo, Walter Russell
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Watt, captain George Steven H.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Remer, John R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
White, Henry Graham


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spens, William Patrick
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ross, Ronald D.
Storey, Samuel
Wood, sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strauss, Edward A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (f'nham)
Summersby, Charles H.
George Penny.


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tate, Mavis Constance



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Hirst, George Henry
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Den Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Dr. Clayton, Mr. Glossop, and Mr. Moreing; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Guy, Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, and Captain Strickland.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill): Sir Reginald Mitchell Banks and Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Heneage and Sir Gervals Rentoul.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption from s. 5 of Act of 1930 of certain dwelling-houses of low value.)

If in proceedings for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply, not being a sub-let part of another such dwelling-house, or for the ejectment of a tenant there from, the court is satisfied that the recoverable rent of the dwelling-house in respect of which the proceedings are taken is not more than two shillings and sixpence weekly and that the landlord or some person from whom he derives his title has Since the passing of this Act been in possession thereof, section five of the Act of 1920 (which relates to restrictions on the right to possession and other like matters) shall not apply in relation to those proceedings.—[Sir H. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.46 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the exemption from the Act of 1920 of certain dwelling-houses of low value. It has been drafted in pursuance of an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown). I accepted the principle of a new Clause which they brought forward and undertook to find wording which would fit into the Bill. The object of this Clause was fully explained by the hon. Member for Aylesbury during the Committee stage. It is to enable the best use to be made by the agricultural world of cottages for agricultural and estate management purposes. The new Clause proposes to do this by providing that in the case of cottages let at 2s. 6d. a week or less—that is a category that covers practically nothing except agricultural cottages—the provisions of the Act of 1920, except those which limit the permitted rent, shall cease to apply if the landlord wishes to obtain possession.
It will be apparent to the House that this Clause deals only with cottages which are in use for agricultural or estate management purposes. In effect it provides an alternative method of obtaining possession for the sake of the management of the farm or estate—an alternative to the present method under which the owner has to get a certificate from the local authority to the effect that the house is required for agricultural purposes. This is considered to be a more convenient method. There are two points I would emphasise to enable the House to understand the bEarlng of the Clause. First, it leaves the present sitting tenant fully protected in his tenancy, and, secondly, future tenants also, who under the law as it is now would have no protection at all will have the protection of a limitation of rent. The Clause preserves the pool of small houses and carries out the general policy of the Government.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I wish to thank the Minister for proposing to embody in the Bill this provision which I think, is a good one and will improve the Measure. It has been suggested in some quarters that the sum of 2s. 6d. weekly is too low and that it should have been 3s. weekly. On reflection I am confirmed in the view that the sum of 2s. 6d. which I origiNaily selected is the correct one. It is essential that this provision should not be used for profit-making purposes and the sum of 2s. 6d. is so low that there cannot be any question of profit-making. No one has ever accused me of being unduly harsh in regard to the rights of owners and, frankly, I think that owners who wish to avail themselves of this privilege can very well keep the rents at this figure. In the Clause as origiNaily proposed the sum mentioned was 2s. 6d. weekly evclusive of rates. In the new Clause proposed by the Minister there is no mention of rates. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what is the position in that respect because, as he knows, some houses are let exclusive of rates and others inclusive of rates? I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for having made this improvement in what I think is already a good Bill.

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member looks at the wording of the Clause he will see:
The recoverable rent …in respect of which the proceedings are taken, is not more than two shillings and sixpence weekly.

That is the rent exclusive of rates.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Modification of permitted increases in rent.)

Section two of the Act of 1920 (which provides for certain increases in rent) shall have effect as though in paragraph (c) thereof for the word "fifteen" there were substituted the word "ten," and as though in paragraph (d) thereof for the word "twenty-five" there were substituted the word"twenty."—[Mr. Maclean."]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In the Committee stage we endeavoured to get the increase permissible under the Act of 1920 amended so as to reduce the total increase, including repairs, to 20 per cent. In view of reduced costs and the reduced wages of those inhabiting the houses to which the Act applies we considered that to be a reasonable figure. If the Minister of Health made inquiries in any of the industrial areas in England or Scotland he would find the general view taken by the inhabitants of these houses is that the 40 per cent. total should be wiped out; that owing to the reduced earnings of the workers and the reduction in costs there is no longer any necessity for permitted increases at the rate sanctioned by the original Act. While we cannot go back on the decision of the Committee, which declined to accept a proposal to reduce it to 20 per cent., we are asking the House by this new Clause to reduce it to 30 per cent. The Minister time and again has had his attention drawn to the fact that the repairs for which allowance is made to house owners are in most cases not being done. The 25 per cent. in the Act to cover the cost of repairs was origiNaily allowed because of what was then deemed to be the high cost of material and the high wages paid to those doing repairing work. But that period has passed; those high wages no longer prevail and costs are no longer as high as they were.
Anyone who has anything to do with the housing of the people throughout the country and who makes inquiries into the methods of house owners and estate agents, or collects the views of the tenants of these houses on the question, will find that very few repairs are now done by the house owner or his agent. If I could get the Minister of Health to accompany me on a tour round the working-class districts of Glasgow I would be able to show him tenement dwellings in which no interior repairs of any kind have been done Since the original Act was passed. House owners, estate agents and house factors have now concluded, for the most part, that the 25 per cent. origiNaily permitted for the specific purpose of repairing the houses was actually given to them as an increase in rent. They have now pocketed, and are pocketing, that 25 per cent. in addition to the 15 per cent. permitted increase of rent. I submit that the time has now come when a change ought to be made in this respect. Everything else has come down. Costs have come down, wages have come down, and hon. Members associated with public companies complain that dividends have come down where companies are still in the fortunate position of paying any dividends at all. If everything else has fallen there is no reason why we should continue to have one section in the favoured and privileged position of house owners who are able to impose higher rents than they were permitted to do when the first Rent Restrictions Act was passed. The new Clause proposes to adjust that matter by making a 30 per cent. increase cover both repairs allowance and increase of rent, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to second the Motion.
I want honestly to appeal to the Minister to accept this Clause, and I want also to suggest to hon. Members that there can be no justification in tenants of houses which were built previous to the War now paying an additional 40 per cent. on the standard rates and rents of 1914. I think that sometimes when we are discussing this issue Members are apt to forget that we are dealing here with property which was bulk prior to the War, when all landowners could fix an economic rent unimpaired by legislation
according to the demand for houses in various parts of the country. They could fix a standard rent which the tenant was bound to pay, and I submit that in every instance it would be a full economic rent which would be giving to the landlord a fair return for his money. The War broke out, and I do not think anyone in the country raised the slightest objection to the landlord being given by State legislation some right to increase his rent in proportion to the conditions that he had to face when prices went up and the cost of living was high in times of prosperity during the War and just following the War.
But now we are confronted with very different times, and hon. Members must be aware that tenants who are called upon to pay a 40 per cent. increase in their rents above those of 1914 have had a tremendous reduction in salaries and wages Since 1921. The economic condition of the country has left 3,000,000 people without wages tenanting houses tied with a 40 per cent. increase. I never heard a word in the Debate on Second Reading or in Committee from the lips of any Member of this House justifying the continuation of this 40 per cent. increase. It is true that in many parts of the country some landlords at the time did not take full advantage of the 40 per cent. increase. I know many landlords who were satisfied with 30 per cent. increase, and have Since admitted that they got full value for their money from that 30 per cent. increase. Now we do submit that when we have millions of men with no wages dependent upon unemployment pay, and thousands dependent upon public assistance, the time has come when there can be no justification for continuing a guarantee to the landlords of 40 per cent. above his pre-war rent prices.
We, therefore, appeal to the Minister to accept this Clause, and we suggest that every Britisher will be satisfied with the conditions which we propose. In areas we represent, where depression is terrible, where miners are out of work in thousands and have no early prospect of returning to work, this concession would be a very good thing to them, and we still give to the property owners a fair crack of the whip. The cost of living and the cost of repairs to his property have considerably decreased Since he was made this allowance. I want, therefore,
to appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the full factors which are operating in the country. We ask the Minister, in the interests of the general community, in fairness to the people who are going through terrible distress, privation and poverty, to accept this Clause, which, when all is said and done, gives to the property owner all the protection he can expect at this time of day, and is a fair thing.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to support this Clause. I think that there will be very few in the House who, after examining the actual position, can possibly disagree that the contentions put forward in respect of the Clause are reasonable. There should be very little need to convInce anyone on that score, because, in the first place, I think that Members ought to realise that one of the reasons for obtaining possession of a house is on the ground of arrears of rent. It is highly essential that Members should realise that that means that a person who is not in a position to pay the rent, even although that rent may be a controlled rent, has to appear before the courts or leave the place, and consequently be left without a home. I am not putting that forward on the ground that anyone who does not pay his rent should be entitled to remain, but when it becomes a question of what is a reasonable amount, and what is not, I think we should walk very warily, and decide on the merits of the position before coming to a conclusion that will enable those additions which are at present permissible to remain.
It must be clear to everybody that to-day the cost of repairs is less than it was at the time when this provision was made. It is obvious to everybody that money is cheaper to-day, and that consequently the amount of expenditure would not entail as much as might have been paid by way of interest at the time the original Act of 1920 was brought into force. Those are two very important factors, and, taking them into consideration, I think it is only reasonable to say that at the present stage we should reduce the permissible amount of increase so as to correspond with the amount which the landlord has to expend in order to provide repair?, and the amount the land-
lord would normally be expected to receive as a return for his money in excess of the amount which was origiNaily returned to him at the time the War broke out. I think in fairness, apart entirely from the unfortunate difficulties which arise, we must look upon the matter from a reasonable standpoint.
Apart altogether from the arguments which hon. Members have expressed that it is a great hardship on people who pay rent, there is an additional argument that no such person should be called upon to pay more than a reasonable increase upon the rent which was origiNaily charged. If one does not take that into consideration, it means that the balance of hardship falls more heavily on the tenant than it does on the landlord. There is the additional fact that there are not so many people who, if they know that a 40 per cent. increase can be imposed, are so generous of heart as to refrain from imposing that increase. What actually happens is that the printed form of increase notice is used by nearly every landlord. That form contains the usual clauses, and the 25 per cent. and the 15 per cent. are incorporated in the form. I am quite sure there are very few landlords, indeed, who, when they get that printed form in their hands, cross out the 25 or the 15, and put in their place, shall we say, 15 and 10, or 20 and 10, as the case may be. In these circumstances, I hope that the Government will see their way clear to accept the Clause, which is a very reasonable one.

4.10 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I am sure that all Members who served on the Departmental Committee will have taken this matter up on the basis—and it must be the general desire of the House—that no excessive amount must be charged, whether for repairs or any other purpose, and it is obvious that any fall in the cost of repairs must be taken into account. That has been the only point put forward by the hon. Members who have spoken on this proposed Clause. I am surprised that they did not read the Departmental Committee's report on this subject, because that committee entirely recognised this point. There was another factor that they had to weigh against it, which hon. Members have not mentioned,
and I particularly refer to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner), who, with his professional knowledge and training, did not take that factor into account. It is that the original amount for the statutory increase for repairs was founded on the report of Lord Salisbury's Committee, to which I do not think sufficient credit has been given, and which has been the basis of all this on the total number of houses that were protected.
This Bill proposes to remove from the area of protected houses Class "A" houses, that is, the better class of house. Everyone knows that the better class of house requires less repair than the worst class of house, and Class "C," we all know, is the particular kind of house which hon. Members have rightly had in mind in suggesting this Clause. These houses require a tremendous amount of repair, which, I am afraid, is very often not sufficiently carried out. Class "A" houses require very little repair, and it is frequently carried out by the tenants themselves. The original figures were laid down as an average for all houses, and the Departmental Committee said so in its report. But now it is proposed to take away the upper layer of houses from this field of houses on which you have got to strike the average. You are very greatly increasing the burden to the repairer when you are keeping the same average for the houses which need much more repair. The difference taken between the two classes of houses is one-fifth and two-fifths. It is taken as the basis of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, where for those purposes the difference in repairs was taken to be double in the one class of house from what it is in the other class of house. The Departmental Committee, after going very thoroughly into this matter, proposed to keep the average the same for the houses which will still be protected under this Bill. It is really an actual decrease of revenue allowed for repairs.
The Committee felt very strongly that they must arrive at a right decision in this matter, because although it is obviously in the interests of everybody that fairness should be done to both sides, and that no extra increase should be allowed to landlords which would mean a profit to them, it must be a businesslike arrangement. If, however, you are
going to give less than is businesslike to the landlord, as has been shown to us in evidence again and again, and allow even less than the cost of repairs, those landlords who own only a few houses simply cannot afford to do the repairs, and SO the repairs are not done. That, I am afraid, has been the reason for a great many of the houses falling into disrepair. You must keep up the proper average, and when you do that, and allow the proper increase for repairs, it is up to the local authorities to insist on the repairs being done. It can only be done if you are fair to both sides, and, therefore, the case for the new Clause, which seemed to be so fair and just, ought to be resisted.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I wish to support the proposed new Clause. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is a mystery to me, because I do not know why he, being a doctor and one who undoubtedly has interested himself in the housing of the people, takes the point of view that he does. He compliments the Salisbury Report and says that we forget that the better class houses do not require as much repairing as the poorer class. Therefore, the poorer class houses are required to pay the increase in order that the repairs may be done. I would appeal to the hon. Member and to the House not to forget that the individuals who put their money into houses do so in order to make a profit. They do not build houses because the folks require houses; it is only incidental that houses are homes. They build them first and foremost in order to make a profit out of them, and they recognise full well that the safest investment in the country is to invest money in the homes of the people, and of the very poorest people. The struggle that our womenfolk have to keep those houses habitable passes all human understanding, particularly in our great industrial centres, as you find when you go inside for, although the outside may be old and mean, the result of the endeavour and ingenuity that are put forth by the mothers of working-class children to make their houses homes is plain to see. Instead of criticising and putting strictures upon them, this House ought to take a generous view of the situation.
In this new Clause we have made a great concession, because we are pledged to our constituents—at any rate, I can speak authoritatively for Scotland—to pre-war rents for pre-war houses, and we come forward to-day and have modified that demand. We have tried everything that is humanly possible in order to wring from this powerful Government some concession for the folk who sent us here, who made them practically all-powerful in this country, who gave them practically a dictatorship. They called it a doctor's mandate. The Prime Minister wanted a blank cheque, and he got it, and we make this demand on behalf of the folk who gave them all that power, who surrendered everything to them, to take Britain out of the terrible mess that it was then in, and that it is still in as far as the folk whom we represent are concerned. Their conditions are just as hellish to-day as they were when the National Government took over the reins of office. They are not one whit better, and the longer it goes on the worse it gets, the people never having enough money to buy anything new, and not even enough to procreate their species. That is what you are subjecting over 3,000,000 Britons to at this juncture.
We come forward with this new Clause. We have been appealed to, by those who are supposed to be able to gauge the pulse of this House, and told that if we would forgo the 50 per cent., we might get some concession. It is nearly 50 per cent. In the West of Scotland it is 47i per cent., and in England, to my own personal knowledge, it is 60 per cent. I can give the districts where that is in operation now, but in our part of the world it is 47½ per cent. increase that they got, and our folk sent us here to demand that that should be taken off entirely. We have tried that; we have reasoned with Members of this House, publicly and privately, and we have been advised that the best thing we can do is to see if they will give us a 10 per cent. increase only. That is going a long way, when you consider what the situation is to-day and what the situation was that obtained when they got that increase. They got 33⅓ per cent. first, in 1920, and they got it from a Government that was pledged not to give them it. Then it was increased to 47½ per cent., and they got that on the distinct understanding that 35 per cent. of
that increase would be for making the necessary repairs, which had not been done as a result of the War. The whole of the property had fallen into a state of disrepair, and the argument carried great weight with the then Minister of Health, Sir Alfred Mond, that properties were becoming dilapidated as a result of repairs not having been done. They therefore agreed to 35 per cent. increase in that respect.
My point is that it was the tenants, who did not own the houses, who were asked to pay for the repairs to houses that belonged to somebody else, and the Government of the day agreed to that, agreed to the poor, who are so poor that they cannot afford to build houses for themselves, paying for those repairs. The Government of that day were, and evidently the Government of this day are, prepared to make the poor people pay for the repairs to houses that do not belong to them. It is the only case in Christendom, even under Capttalism, in which this idea operates, that the folk who are paying rent for the houses in which they live have to keep those houses in a state of repair—not the owners who are drawing the rents, but the tenants who are paying the rents. That is the accepted idea. That is the mentality that is brought to bear on this subject by the ruling class of this country. When they got that increase, to all intents and purposes there was no unemployment in this country, and wages were at least from 60 to 70 per cent. better than they are today. The scene has entirely changed. The landlords representations to the Government were that they had got none of the swag, that they were not allowed to profiteer the same as the rest of the profiteers during the War. We made the case out against them that those houses, those homes of the people, were built before the War, and that the War conditions had nothing to do with them. There was no extra cost involved, and they admitted, in stating their own case, that the war-time conditions did not apply, because they had made no repairs.
I think we have made out a very reasonable case for this very reasonable Clause. How are we to go back to our folk and justify their sending us here? They will say: "What is the use of your House of Commons? What is the use of sending
individuals down there? "We say to them: "Send working-class representatives to the Floor of the British House of Commons, where the outstanding feature is one of 'Come, let us reason together,' and where we are able to state a reasonable case to reasonable men who are met together for the good of the country, not for the good of a section." If the Minister of Health does not accept this new Clause we will divide the House. We shall have a good case with which to go to the country, and we shall draw attention to the fact that, after all our pleading and our sweet reasonableness, the Government are hidebound to any appeals that can be made on behalf of the poor of this country, and that they are essentially out to defend private property and the rich and to condemn the poor.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: This matter was discussed at considerable length during the Committee stage, and it is not my desire to detain the House long on Report, but, as one who expressed the view on Second Reading and again in Committee that the Government would do well to reduce the permitted increase of 40 per cent. to 30 per cent., I desire to say a few words on this last opportunity before the Third Reading. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health replied to the rather long Debate which we had in Committee he based his argument for resisting any reduction of the permitted increase upon the theory that what the landlord lost on the War-time swings he should be allowed to get back on the depression roundabouts. My right hon. Friend's exact words were:
In considering the circumstances at the present time, when the cost of repairs has fallen, those who have, during so many years, put up with a permitted increase which was inadequate, must be allowed time to recover from the effect of the loss which they have suffered during that period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1933; cols. 2483–4, Vol. 276.]
The Minister gave a review based largely on the report of the Inter-departmental Committee showing how sharply the cost of repairs had risen Since 1914 and how it has only recently begun to decline. My right hon. Friend went on to give the considered opinion of the Government that, in view of all those circumstances, they considered that the permitted increase should remain at the figure of 40 per cent It is to that argument I desire
to address myself. I wish to contest the suggestion that in legislating in 1933 we have to base ourselves on the circumstances of 1914. I have lively recollections of the recent General Election in a working-class area when I stood upon the Government programme of various cuts and economies and defended them by the unusual circumstances of the time as being necessary in order to keep the country upon an even keel. Out of those cuts was a cut in the pay of the Army and Navy, but I have heard no one suggest that because the private soldier in 1914 was engaged in protecting his country at 1s. a day, while others at home were earning £7 or £8 a week on war work, such as the making of munitions, and because he was unable to stay at home then, he should be immune in 1931 from a cut in his pay in order to get back on the depression roundabouts what he had lost on the wartime swings. No one suggested that for the obvious reason that he was not the same soldier and that one seeks in vain in the barrack room of 1933 for the private soldier of 1914–18. If we wish to find the private soldier of those years, we shall find him in a controlled house paying a 40 per cent. increase over pre-War rent. A new generation has come into being. Fifteen years have passed Since the Armistice. It is not the same soldier to-day, and in very many cases it is not the same landlord, and it is entirely fallacious to base our calculations upon a review of a period so long ago as 1914.
May I say a word upon the possible injustice to the investor in property should the Government see their way to accept this new Clause which I hope they will. The Government have taken the view, to use the words of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General on Second Reading, that to make this reduction would be retrospective legislation of a confiscatory nature The property owner in 1914 was subject to certain disadvantages which the Minister outlined when he spoke last, but may I compare him with the holder of the 2½ per cent. Consols, which was the gilt-edged security of that time. The holder of Consols, which stood at 114 just before the War and fell to 57 during the War, saw half his Capttal swept away. This was due to the issue of new Government stock bEarlng 5 per cent. interest, to the heavy borrowings of the Government to finance
the War, and to circumstances of that kind. These caused the holder of 2½ per cent. Consols, who himself had been subjected to a conversion not very long before—they were origiNaily 3 per cent. and were reduced to 2¾ and then to 2½ by conversion schemes—to suffer heavy reductions, and no one has suggested that he should not have remained the victim of those circumstances. It is very probable that in many cases the holder of Consols sold his stock and obtained 5 per cent. War stock, and yet we have dealt with the holder of 5 per cent. War loan during the past 12 months by the successful conversion scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Even the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) served so ably, made this statement in Paragraph 60:
As regards the 15 per cent. permitted for increased interest, either to the mortgagee or to the owner himself, it is difficult to see how there could reasonably be any alteration so long as the owners still have to pay the mortgagees their increased interest, and we have received no evidence justifying any alteration of this increase.
That was the situation in 1931, but Since then surely a change has come over the scene.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Not on the mortgages on these houses.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: The hon. Member is entitled to make that observation, but he can hardly look ahead until 1938, which is the period covered by this proposal, and say that that would be the situation then.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: The present mortgages hold good.

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: If it is the case that there is to be no reduction of these mortgages, one wonders why the conversion scheme was launched at all, and why we pride ourselves on having provided cheap money. If my hon. Friend is right, we cannot take the credit which we have been taking for the financial policy of the Government.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member in the course of his interesting argument deal with this point? Does he seek to limit this increase to all other cases? How would he deal with the question of wages, some of which are 100 per cent. above 1914?

Mr. BRAITHWAITE: I am afraid that I should be out of order if I were to discuss on a proposed new Clause to the Kent Bill the particular case of wages. I tried to relate the two matters more closely on the Second Reading and perhaps the Noble Lord will do me the honour to read my speech. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's new housing policy and of the efforts which they are making to provide houses for letting at rents, exclusive of rates, of approximately 3s. 2d. I am anxious to see that move in the direction of lower rents succeed. I am only a little afraid that by taking the rent of the pre-War houses for five years at the figure of 40 per cent. above the pre-War figure, it may put an obstacle in the way of the very desirable goal which the Government have set themselves. I want to claim, as one who is neither a landlord nor a tenant, that I have done my best to weigh up the merits of this case. I am in no sense an enemy of landlords or concerned with championing the tenants as against the landlords, but I hold, after going into the figures very carefully, that we have to make a comparison with 1920, when the Rent Restrictions Act was passed, rather than with 1914. I have gone into the question as carefully as possible, and I have done my best to put the views that I hold. I do not think that my case is an attack upon property, and I do not think it is antagonistic to property to suggest, when the Government have taken control of rents, and when other things are falling the Government are not entitled to continue this permitted increase. In view of these circumstances, I hope that the Government, who owe their existence to millions of working-class people, will consider once more before the Bill leaves the House whether there is not a case for this small and reasonable reduction.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I should like to reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who had the advantage of serving on the Inter-Departmental Committee. He also signed the report, which was, with one exception, unanimous, and was signed by Labour Members, Conservative Members and Liberal Members. When we have Labour Members appointed by the Labour Government, people of standing in the movement, and capable
people who know their job signing a report with Conservatives and Liberals, one must pay great respect to it. The hon. Member for St. Albans remains, with one exception, the sole representative of the committee in the House, so that, when he speaks on the report, he speaks as a defender not merely of his own view but of the view of the committee.
He stated to-day that the committee considered the question of repairs, and in their report the committee are critical of the way that repairs have been carried out. The hon. Member says that it may be true that the repairs have not been done. There are different reasons for that, and he says that, although repairs have not been done, it does not mean that the landlord should not be allowed the increase, but that it is for the law to be carried out. The law ought to see that the money granted to the landlord is properly spent on the repairs for which it is paid. That is his reason. The hon. Gentleman used an amazing argument when he said that the better class houses are kept in better repair, and consequently the increase permitted on them was much more profitable to their owners than to the owners of the poorer class houses.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: If, was not only that they are kept in repair, but that they cost much less to keep in repair.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, and the reason given for that was that they were of a better type. When I heard that argument I almost despaired of the Departmental Committee. It is obvious to anybody who knows both class of houses that the poorer-class house needs repair more, and it must not be forgotten, also, that in the case of poorer-class houses the landlord is drawing a higher return as rent from a given acreage of ground. There is this further point, that the great bulk of the working class who are tenants are people directly or indirectly engaged on work similar to house repairing in their day to day jobs. The joiner in a shipyard is capable of repairing his own house, and an engineer is also capable of doing repairs at home, and the consequence is that the repairs to their houses are less costly, because the tenants keep on repairing the houses themselves. I worked in a shipyard. I do not know whether it will be regarded as a criticism of the men I worked with, but they were
constantly seeking the permission of the foreman to make things to improve their houses. When working people are unemployed part of their time is often spent in repairing their houses.
The argument that working people do not repair their houses never had any force, because if there is one section of the community who repair their own houses it is the working class. One reason for this is that the average man capable of repairing his house does not want the bother of going to the factor or the owner—does not want all the cross duelling and the annoyance of it. Secondly, he does not want strange people about the house. A third reason is that people never know when the landlord will send someone to do the repairs, and so do them themselves. I should say that almost without exception working people do the overwhelming bulk of their own repairs. I have done them myself, and do them still—I worked all my life at wood work—and I am in a better position to get repairs done than most people. If there is a repair to be done in my house, what have I got to do to get it done? First, I must notify the landlord by letter, and then wait until he cares to send a man. When that man arrives he must take notes of what has to be done, and then he has to go away and come back again. My goodness, when I think of it I say, "I will do the thing myself." It is far less worry and annoyance.

Mr. PIKE: Is the hon. Member bEarlng in mind the cost of the raw material when he does the repair himself?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes, even with the cost of the raw material it is better. You are not kept a prisoner at home, never knowing when the man is coming to do the repairs. And when he does come, look at the mess he makes. I had a window broken and rather than wait for somebody to be sent to repair it I got a local glazier to come up and do it. He did it in five minutes for a shilling or two, and that saved the wife being kept a prisoner at home till the landlord sent someone. Everyone knows how a wife dislikes the mess when plasterers and painters are about. Everyone who knows working class life knows that what I am saying is correct. It happens even in the case of labourers. They may not be tradesmen themselves, but they acquire
a knowledge of their trade and are handy enough with their hands to do a job themselves, and they do it rather than lose their time and their patience waiting for the landlord to send along.
Consequently, I think the Labour party are putting forward a very reasonable Amendment. I disagree with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) about their having asked for pre-war rents. They never asked for prewar rents. I am not arguing now about pre-war rents. What they did ask for was a larger decrease. Having failed to get the larger decrease, they are coming now to ask for a smaller decrease, which is a sensible thing to do. This is a terribly reasonable Amendment, and I cannot see any reason for not accepting it other than the report of the Departmental Committee, and I cannot see any justification for that report. I cannot understand the minds of the men and women who signed that report, and I am afraid those who sit on the Labour benches have a grave responsibility for what was signed. They signed recommendations allowing increases. It is no answer to say, "This is 1933 and it was 1931 then." We had millions of unemployed then, and wages were low. We stood for pre-war rent when wages were good, as the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs rightly says. Again I say to the Minister that this Amendment represents a reasonable and moderate request, and those who sponsor it have done quite right to put it forward after having failed to get the larger decrease.
I am not sure that from the landlord's point of view it might not be as well to accept this Amendment. Large numbers of people cannot pay the rents which are now to be insisted upon, and it might be much better to have a lower rent, which the landlord might get, than to fix a higher rent which cannot be paid and must involve shocking hardships and almost persecution. In the West of Scotland we feel that the great need, above all things, is a decrease in rent. Everyone—Conservatives, Liberals and Labour people—is convInced that there is no need for this increase of rent. I remember the Prime Minister saying that he was not unsympathetic to this point of view. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. For 22 years he has been Member for Greenock, a town which is
passing through fearful hardships at the moment, a town where men have been receiving shockingly low wages. The rent problem there is a terrible one. Meet the unemployed men at the Labour Exchange, and they will tell you that while they appreciate the fall in the cost of living the one thing that still beats them is the rent. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Greenock or Glasgow or to any other big city, he would find an absolutely unanimous opinion that rents ought to be reduced. Therefore, I support this Amendment. For myself, I agree about the pre-war rents, but I think the Labour party were right in altering their Amendment in view of the fact that they were beaten when they asked for a larger reduction. This is a very moderate and meagre request, and I hope it will be accepted by the Government.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: Nearly up to the time when I became a Member of this House I earned my livelihood as a labourer in the building trade, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) upon his suggestion that every working-class man when he is able to do so should do his own house repairs. I would like him to go and tell that to the members of the building trade in his own division, because one of the principal complaints—at least, in the London area—is that there are too many people trying to do their own repairs.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But they do it.

Mr. JONES: Yes, and there are too many landlords taking advantage of it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, hear!

Mr. JONES: The landlords offer them the raw material with which to do the repairs, and tell them they will knock a proportion off the rent, but they do not allow anything like what it would cost if they had to employ outside labour to do the work. It is one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard said in this House, that we should solve the unemployment problem by taking in one another's washing. But that is only a point on a side issue. The main point is that the landlords want an increase in rent, and the landlords can always get their interests well protected in this
House. We are asking for a reduction in rent—not as much as we would like, but as much as we can get. I know that we shall not get it—from this House. I might as well go into Trafalgar Square and appeal to the lions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Appeal to the Labour men who signed the report.

Mr. JONES: You appeal to anybody you like. Do not try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. That is the game you continually play in this House. You are always getting up and criticising your own colleagues. Now you are quarrelling with the new comrades that you lately found. They do not quite satisfy you. So far as I am concerned, I belong to the same crowd that I have always belonged to, and I shall belong to them to the end of the chapter. I do not find fault with those with whom I used to work, just to make a joke with the people on the other side.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hear, bear.

Mr. JONES: I know that in the district I come from, which is more typically working class than most districts in the London area, that if you ask a landlord to do repairs you are asking for a notice to quit. Some of the houses have not been touched, even though the landlords have had the advantage of increasing the rents. It is an insult to ask a landlord or his agent to do any repairs. Nobody comes round to ask whether you want any repairs done; yet they are drawing their money every week for repairs that they have never done. The only time when the local authorities have power to intervene is when the houses become unfit for human habitation, and then they can come in and take action. No notice is taken of the need for external repairs until the water comes in through the roof. We have some landlords, and unfortunately for them they do not belong to the same race as we do—I am not blaming them for that—who do a particular trade in buying up dilapidated property. They do it up, to a small extent, and then they charge the fullest rent that they can under the Act, but the tenant has no protection. If the tenants say anything about the condition of the houses, the landlord takes advantage of his legal opportunities and uses his full powers as far as the law will allow him. If the tenant
gets an order to get out of the house a new tenancy is created, and the rent goes up again.
We are asking for protection for the tenant. The better-class houses are already paying more than they ought to be paying. I know of skilled workmen in our district who work in the docks, and who do a lot to their own houses. They have made new houses at their own expense, and the landlord allows those repairs to be done at the expense of the tenant. Does the Minister believe that that system ought to continue? The repairs of the houses should be done by those who own the houses and not by those who live in them, because the men who live in them have no ownership. The concession that we are asking for to-day is merely one of 10 per cent., in order that the ordinary tenant living in a working-class house, shall not be bled to the extent that he is bled to-day. What about the position of the dock labourer? Come down with me, if you like, to-day or to-morrow morning, to the gates of Victoria Dock, and see thousands of men lined up, waiting for the chance of a day or half-a-day's work. They only get half-a-day guaranteed, but the landlord does not take half-a-day's rent. He wants the full amount. Thousands of men are turned away from the dock, but they are not turned away from the rent-book. That is going on all the time. I ask that this concession should be granted to those who most need assistance at the present time.

5.5 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I very gladly join in the invitation of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) to take part in this Debate in the spirit of sweet reasonableness. I will say at once to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) who moved the new Clause, that I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Clause on the same general grounds that I was unable to accept the previous Amendment which was moved in the Committee stage of the Bill. Although this proposes a less reduction of the permitted increase of rent, the arguments which I placed before the Committee in opposing the original Amendment are equally valid to show that there should be no reduction at the present time. I wish to say nothing derogatory of the hon. Member for Hems-
worth (Mr. Price) or of other hon. Members, but they have not placed any contention before the House on this occasion that they did not use on the last occasion. In saying that I am rather paying a tribute to the completeness of their first speeches, which covered the ground so extensively.
If there was a new contention advanced in the Debate, I think it was advanced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in his description, which, I have no doubt, is in strict accordance with the facts, of the large amount of work done by many wage-earners in repairing their own houses. A duel arose, as soon as that contention was advanced, between the hon. Member for Gorbals and the stout champion of the trade unionists, the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). That is an aspect of the Debate which I shall not develop. In reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals, I would say that the argument is not complete or perfect when one simply says that so many wage earners do a large amount of repairs to their own houses. I have no doubt that they do, but everybody who has been responsible for the management of an estate will recognise that that is by no means always in relief of the liability of the owner for repairs. The repairs that are done with so much skill and energy by the actual occupant, tend, owing to a lack of money to find raw materials and to his desire not to disturb his house too much, to be of a superficial nature. When a house is dealt with in that manner, the dilapidations tend to accumulate, and the property owner has to spend as much in one big repair as-he would have done in carrying out annual repairs.
The argument is not to be decided in a just sense by mere appeals for a concession, or by exclusive attention to the interests either of the occupiers or of the owners. The anxious task which lies upon those who are responsible for making proposals to the House, and upon the House in judging those proposals, is to do equal justice to both sides. The argument of the Inter-Departmental Committee was perfectly sound when it stated that the present permitted increase of rent was not too large in respect of the item of repairs. It has been said by the hon. Member for Govan that that was three years ago, and that the cost of repairs.
has fallen Since then, but, if hon. Members will look at the arithmetical basis of the argument, they will see that, at the time the Committee reported, there had already been a very substantial fall in the cost of repairs. The members of the committee no doubt weighed that when they gave their judicial judgment in their report. Not only had a large part of the fall taken place when the committee reported, but, if hon. Members consider the actual cost of repairs, they will see that there was still a very big margin to cover any further fall in the cost of repairs to the owner of the house. Hon. Members may read the passage to which I refer, on page 33 of the report, which says:
The cost of doing repairs to working-class houses is now about twice what it was in 1914–1.e., it is about 50 per cent. of the pre-War net rent. It follows that there is no case for altering the permitted increase of 25 per cent.
There was no case at that time, and there was a very large margin to cover a further fall in the cost of repairs. Let me compare the percentage allowed in this case with that allowed under another Act of Parliament, the Rating and Valuation Act. In respect of small houses of the sort that I am considering, the amount allowed in the Eating and Valuation Act is 40 per cent. Here it is only 25 per cent. The Inter-Departmental Committee said that they thought that 40 per cent., as in the Rating and Valuation Act, was too high. That leaves a very wide margin between the 40 per cent. allowed in that Act of Parliament and the 25 per cent. which we are allowing here. A very important aspect of this matter, from the point of view of the actual facts and figures of the case, was very well brought out by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). The arguments of the hon. Member for St. Albans were quite rightly taken up by the hon. Member for Gorbals, who studiously tried to do justice to the hon. Member, but the point is not that the more expensive class of houses need less repairs, or that the repairs to the more expensive class of houses cost less than the repairs to the smaller houses; the point is that, in proportion to the total rent, the amount which is required for repairs is less in the case of a big house and of a big rent than in the case of a small house and a small rent.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Minister not losing sight of the fact that, in the first instance, the amount of Capttal invested in the smaller house is less than the amount that is invested in the greater house, and that it brings in a greater return eventually?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I say that the point I intended to make was that the tenant of the well-to-do house usually knows his legal rights in regard to repairs, and is in a much better position to enforce them than is a poorer tenant.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am not losing sight of the point referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs. I do not think the point made by the hon. Member for Gorbals is relevant to the argument, but I will deal with it in a moment. I am sure that all hon. Members have the point clearly in mind now. If you need 25 per cent. of the rent for repairs to a small house with a small rent, you will probably need a much smaller percentage in respect of a large house with a large rent. That is a fact very well known to all those who have been responsible for house-property. The House knows that what we are doing is to limit the operation of the permitted increase under the Act to the smaller class of house. The change that we are making as regards the limitation to the smaller class of houses is, therefore, a strong reason why we should not reduce the permitted increase of rent. If we had been decreasing it in the case of the bigger houses, there might nave been an argument for decreasing it in the case of the smaller, but we are doing the opposite, and the new conditions are a strong argument for retaining the old permitted increase.
Let me also remind the House of one of those facts which we are apt to lose sight of when our discussions become merely theoretical. That is that every year these small houses are getting older and older, so that every year the cost of repairs goes up and up, and, consequently, the reason for reducing the permitted increase goes down and down. It is true that, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite), when a similar Amendment was introduced in Committee I pointed out to the Committee that you could not, ill dealing with repairs, fail to take account of the whole
period during which the artificial restriction of rent had been imposed upon this class of investor, and that you must consider what has happened to him in the past as well as what is happening to him at the present time. That still seems to me to be absolutely fair, and I differ from the hon. Member's view that that argument can be neglected. He says that the owners may not now be the same, but let me present to him this difficulty. Either the present owners are the same owners who had these houses when the cost of repairs was so much bigger than it is at present, or they are not. If they are the same owners, then, surely, they are entitled in fairness to some consideration of the fact that round about 1920, and for several years afterwards, the permitted increase of 25 per cent. was not adequate in respect of repairs. If they are not the same owners, then, in that case, they bought the houses and invested their Capttal on the basis of the 40 per cent. permitted increase of rent, and, if you now reduce that permitted increase, you confiscate a part of their property.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: Is it not the fact that, when such houses changed hands in those circumstances, it was with the full knowledge that at any moment the 40 per cent. permitted increase, or any part of it, might be swept away, in view of the fact that at that time the Act was being renewed annually under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

Sir H. YOUNG: The houses were bought, as we may both suppose, upon the assumption that, as long as the permitted increase of 25 per cent. was justified by the facts of the case, it would be maintained. My argument is that the facts of the case still justify that permitted increase, and if, against those facts, it were reduced, it would be in the nature of a disappointment of a legitimate expectation on the part of those who have invested in this type of property, and I do not think it is using an exaggerated phrase to say that it would amount to confiscation of a part of their property.
There is one wide aspect of this matter which we must not neglect, and which underlies the whole question. We are dealing here with an artificial system which imposes a restriction, a diminution, in the interests of the community as a
whole, upon the return which a particular class of investor would otherwise be able to get from his investment, and which he might legitimately have expected to get when he first made his investment. The making of any further reduction of that return, which is already thus artificially reduced, would require to be doubly and trebly justified in the interests of the community as a whole. I do not think that this proposed reduction would be in the interests of the community, or even of the occupier. There are ample provisions in the law to enable occupiers to see that repairs are carried out. I may remind the House that we are introducing into the law, in this Bill, a fresh provision, of much more importance than may seem to be the case at first sight, to assist the occupier in securing that his repairs are carried out. As the House knows, the occupier can refuse to pay the permitted increase of rent if the repairs are not carried out. In the past—

Mr. KIRKW00D: As far as Scotland is concerned, all that the owner is required to do is to keep the house wind and watertight.

Sir H. YOUNG: The occupier is entitled to refuse to pay the permitted increase of rent if repairs are not carried out in a reasonable manner in accordance with the terms of the law by the owner. I have not hitherto heard any criticism of the definition of the type of repairs required to be carried out. Hitherto, in order to entitle the occupier to refuse payment, he has had to get a legal certificate that under the Rent Restrictions Acts the repairs were not being carried out. Now we have a new provision that, if any notice is issued under the Housing Acts to the effect that the premises are not in reasonable repair, that notice shall automatically have the same effect as a notice given under the Rent Restrictions Acts, That provision will have a very important effect, because the number of houses which are put into repair in one way or another under the Housing Acts in the course of a year amounts to no fewer than 500,000, so that, if even only a small proportion of this number were to fructify, so to speak, in assisting the occupier to secure the carrying out of proper repairs, it would be a very important addition to the rights and powers of the occupier in
that regard. I believe that on this occasion the argument in favour of a reduction of the permitted increase has failed as regards the smaller houses, as it has in the case of the larger, and, for the reasons which I have stated, I ask the House to maintain it as it is in the Bill.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I had hoped that the Minister would have met us on this Clause, especially in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Braithwaite), who put what seemed to me to be a very powerful case. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early part of his speech, said that it was the object of the Government to do equal justice to both sides, but, surely, the object of the Government should be to give equal justice to all sides, and there are other sections of the community at the present time who are interested in this problem besides landlords and tenants. The whole economic situation to-day has to be taken into account in dealing with this problem of rent, and this is where I join issue with the Minister. He says that costs have fallen, and that is true; it was admitted when the Inter-Departmental Committee reported. They said, on the basis of evidence placed before them, that costs had fallen, and the greater bulk of the fall, it was suggested, took place before then; and, because that fall took place, the 40 per cent. is said to be right now. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the report, which has been quoted so frequently during these Debates, he will see that the opinion of the Committee, having regard to the situation of 1930, was this:
It is, however, clear that the permitted increase, though not excessive, is now, owing to the fall in costs, sufficient to enable a conscientious landlord to carry out all necessary repairs on an adequate scale.
I am prepared to say that landlords, during the intervening time from the publication of the report down to to-day, have shown no increasing disposition to do these repairs, nor am I satisfied that the suggestions made in the Inter-Departmental Committee's report, or the provision made in the Bill, will have any real effect in ensuring that this right, for which the landlord, on the basis of 1930, can well afford to pay—I will come to the last three years in a moment—is going
to be obtained by the tenant. It may be true that something approaching 500,000 houses are repaired each year, but, broadly speaking, with the present composition of local authorities, with the housing conditions that prevail, and with the shortage that there is in many areas, local authorities do not in fact exercise their powers, and, where they have to save their faces by doing something, they do not require the landlords to make the repairs that ought to be required of them in order really to carry out the law of the land.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Except in 500,000 cases.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am trying to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a good deal of these repairs is purely eyewash. My contention is that the local authorities permit the minimum to be done. Indeed, it is not eyewash, but whitewash, and there is very little besides. The case I am trying to make is that local authorities, partly because they are largely representative of certain interests, or interests sway their opinions, and laregly because, in many towns, there is still a shortage of houses, do not feel that they can enforce the full rigour of the law on the landlords; and, in fact, of the 500,000 houses that are repaired each 3"ear, in the vast Majority of cases the repairs have been of a very simple character. My own view, and I am satisfied that it is the view of all people who are acquainted with this question, is that to-day landlords are not required to carry out the full measure of the law as regards the repairs of houses which they own. If it be true that the landlord could well recoup himself in 1930 with the 40 per cent. increase for repairs, it is increasingly so now, because the cost of repairs has fallen. Further, if it be argued that the landlord has additional burdens of taxation upon him I would reply, "So has everybody else, and that is no argument why the landlord should receive separate treatment."
He has this little fund also on which to draw. In addition to the further fall in prices Since 1930, one has to remember that the 40 per cent. increase was not decided upon merely in order to allow of the landlord meeting the increased cost of repairs. For that purpose the amount was 25 per cent., while 10 per cent. was for increased mortgage interest—and it
has been pointed out already that this may, within the next five years, in hundreds of cases be substantially reduced—and 5 per cent. was for increased yield on the owner's Capttal. This is a pure windfall at present for the landlord of small property. There is an enormous amount of small property, especially in the provInces, which I know better than London, which has been in the possession of the same persons for 30 or 40 years, bought at astonishingly low prices when the rate of interest was lower even that it is to-day. They made handsome profits for 20 years before the War, when the small property owner was relatively rolling in wealth. They had a short period of time during the War when, because of their attempts at exploitation, they forced up rents. It was followed by the inevitable reaction and the Government, I have no doubt much against their will, had to step in to restrict their rights, but they got an additional 40 per cent. during 0the greater part of the War period, 25 per cent. of it for repairs. They never did any repairs during the War. The labour and materials were not there to do it. It was an almost unknown sight to see housing repairs during the War. (Practically all building operations, except for War purposes, ceased during the War and they were able during that time to charge that additional rent for repairs which they did not execute. It is true that for a few years after the War they had to pay very excessive prices for repairs compared with previous prices. If the right hon. Gentleman says that now they ought to be recouping themselves, I say that large numbers of them recouped themselves before rent restriction ever began, during the early part of the War and during the first period when rent restriction was imposed.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: It is plain that the 1915 Act did not allow any increase of

rent. It was not till the 1919 Act came along, and, therefore, during the whole of the War there was no increase of rentals.

Mr. GREENWOOD: They allowed the 15 per cent., but the legal obligations as regards repairs still obtained and were not, in effect, being carried out. If there had been no war, they would have been required to do the repairs which national conditions made it almost impossible for them to carry out. The owner of Capttal in house property to-day is no more entitled than other people to a higher rate of interest, and the suggestion that we are trying to reduce rents below a level that is reasonable will not bear examination when one considers that these people are being permitted by law the possibility of a rate of interest which they would not normally be able to obtain in present circumstances if their Capttal were invested in other industries or in other services. My contention is that the situation has changed very substantially in the last three years. The economic position of hundreds of thousands of people has changed definitely for the worse. An appeal was made by the National Government for sacrifice from everyone and additional sacrifices from certain classes of people, in addition to the general sacrifice of taxation. But the position of the landlord as regards small house property is being pegged and safeguarded for the next five years. I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman even now might think fit to change his mind. I have very little serious hope that he will do so, but I think that the case that has been put, not only from these benches but by the hon. Member for Hillsborough, has not been met, and we must divide on the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 255.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[5.35 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Cove, William G.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Banfield, John William
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bernays, Robert
Edwards, Charles
Harris, Sir Percy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Hicks, Ernest George


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hirst, George Henry


Briant, Frank
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Janner, Barnett


Buchanan, George
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Kirkwood, David
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E)
Tinker, John Joseph


Lawson, John James
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Logan, David Gilbert
Milner, Major James
White, Henry Graham


Lunn, William
Pike, Cecil F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Price, Gabriel
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Rathbone, Eleanor



Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elliston. Captain George Sampson
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Elmley, Viscount
Mabane, William


Atlen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Magnay, Thomas


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Fermoy, Lord
Maitland, Adam


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Sir Gifford
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Blindell. James
Glossop, C. W. H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Borodale, Viscount
Goff, Sir Park
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bossom, A. C.
Goldie, Noel B.
Morrison, William Shephard


Boulton, W. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Granville, Edgar
Munro, Patrick


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bracken, Brendan
Graves, Marjorie
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Nunn, William


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Patrick, Colin M.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Petherick, M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Burnett, John George
Hanbury, Cecil
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
PowNail, Sir Assheton


Campbell. Edward Taswell (Bromlev)
Hartington, Marquess of
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hartland, George A.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Castlereagh, viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugena


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester. City)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Rankin, Robert


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ray, Sir William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Held, David D. (County Down)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Held, William Altan (Derby)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Remer, John R.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Clarke, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.
Horobin, Ian M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, John Roland


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Cooke, Douglas
Hunter. Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooper, A. Dutt
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cowan, D. M.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. Walter


Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cross, R. H.
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir A N. Stewart


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Scone, Lord


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kimball, Lawrence
Selley, Harry R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Davison. Sir William Henry
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Simmoncs, Oliver Edwin


Dickie, John P.
Lees-Jones, John
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Donner, P. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Doran, Edward
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spears, Brigadler- General Edward L.


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. da Vere
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.




Spens, William Patrick
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Thompson, Luke
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Storey, Samuel
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Strauss, Edward A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Withers, Sir John James


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Sir George Penny and Lieut-Colonel


Summersby, Charles H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Tate, Mavis Constance
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

NEW CLAUSE.—(Further amendment as to restriction on right to possession.)

Any person who, in consequence of his employment, occupies a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply shall be deemed to be the tenant thereof as though the dwelling-house had been let to him notwithstanding any agreement, written or implied, under which no rent for the dwelling-house is recoverable, and no order or judgment for the recovery of possession of such dwelling-house or for the ejectment of the tenant there from shall be made or given except in accordance with the provisions of section three of this Act and the First Schedule thereto.—[Mr. Price.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is with great pleasure that I move the Second Reading of this proposed new Clause, which, in regard to the tenancy of property, attempts to put right a longstanding disgrace in British politics, and particularly as it affects the agricultural labourer and many other workers. It is well known in the House that for years past agricultural labourers and other workers who have lived in tied houses have, in many instances, had their families ejected without any notification, simply because they have had a dispute with their employer on the question of wages or conditions. The pleasure I have in moving the Clause is that I have recollections of my mother once being evicted, not because she owed any rent, or because she was an undesirable tenant, but because my father was involved in a trade dispute legitimately claiming his rights under the British constitution, and the owner of the property used the vile weapon of eviction. The proposed new Clause seeks to give the same protection to the man who occupies a house as part and parcel of the terms of his employment as is given to any other workman. The Clause, if it is accepted—and I hope that it will be—will compel the owner of
property to give proper notice and go to court before he can obtain possession. I remember, shortly after the War, sitting upon a court of referees which dealt with tied houses in the West Riding of Yorkshire affected by an agricultural Act, and in many instances that body saved evictions which otherwise would have taken place had the tenants been left to the mercy of their employers.
We have come to a state in our civilisation when we, at least, ought to break the shackles from the wrists of the slave of the land and give his wife and children the normal protection which the Majority of working-class people now enjoy. We hope that the Minister will accept the Clause and concede to the agricultural worker for the first time in British history that which has been conceded in many other countries, so that no evictions may take place until a man has had the opportunity of facing a British court of justice and stating his case. It is rather paradoxical that the law in the first instance gives to me as a miner the right to withdraw my labour in case of a trade dispute, and, after giving me that right, hands over to my employer, not only the right to punish me by withholding labour from me, but the right to take advantage of the position by evicting my wife and children. This sort of thing has been very common in past years. I once remember it being applied to 280 miners and their families, and for months they were encamped in fields during the dispute, as a result of which the colliery company had put the weapon into operation. The company had the protection of the law; they went to the courts before they executed their rights. It is bad enough in those circumstances, but, in the case of the farm labourer in the tied house, an eviction can be executed without the slightest defence. We ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the Clause and to accept it and give some protection to the slave of the land, so
that, however he may be used, at least there shall be humane treatment for his wife and children.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to second the Motion.
As my hon. Friend well said, the conditions which particularly appertain in the rural districts of the country are a standing disgrace. This sort of thing does not hold good to any extent in the big industrial centres where the workers are well organised, but happens in out of the way places. The individuals who are the victims of the law to-day are the great supporters of the Tory Government. The poor agricultural labourer is at the tender mercies of the individuals to whom the Tories are to be very kind—the farmer and the landlord. This is the situation which we are trying to prevent. A man happens to fall foul of his employer, who, in addition to dispensing with his services, has power to throw his wife and family into the street. The Clause aims at doing away with that sort of thing. It is to protect from eviction the agricultural labourer or the miner who, unfortunately, happens to have a dispute with his employer. During labour troubles I have seen miners turned out of their homes, and in some instances I have seen soldiers brought in to put them out, and the miners and their families have had to be placed in encampments.
The Minister of Health, in replying to the last proposed new Clause, which he did not accept, and in which the House supported him, stated that they were here to do justice between two parties. We will tie him to that. Why should the farmer be in the position, not only to dispense with the services of his employe, but also to throw him out of house and home? When the miner is fighting for his legitimate rights under the British constitution, why should the mineowner have the power to throw him out of his home while he himself retains his own home? It is an unequal fight in the eyes of our constitution. The mineowner is not turned out of his house when there is a strike on; it is only the miner. We are trying here to make the law of the land a little more in keeping with modern outlook and life. I admit that the position was not so hard when the law was first instigated, and there was a more
harmonious spirit between the farmer, the landlord, and their employés. But conditions over which they have had no control have eliminated to a great extent the personal touch and the kinship which existed between the agricultural worker and the individual who might employ him. I have never seen the kinship in my time, but I have read about it. During my time there has been no such thing as kindness, except on odd occasions. There has been no consideration.
Therefore, it is the duty of the House, on an occasion like this, to liter the law so as to protect those who are not able to protect themselves. Think of the helpless condition of the poor agricultural worker when he falls out with his employer. His employer can throw him out on to the highway. This great Tory Government—if ever there were a Tory Government, this is it whether you call it National or anything else you like—was returned largely as the result of the votes of the agricultural workers, and now we are appealing on behalf of the folk who put the Government into power to place some preventive Measures upon the Statute Book, not to place them in any favoured position, but in the same position as the rest of the workers. It was the organised effort of the organised workers in the big industrial centres that wrung from the Government of the day the concession that the only individual so far as Scotland is concerned who can put a man out of a house is the sheriff. In England they have to go to the courts in order to put a man out of a house. Even if he pays no rent, the property owner cannot put him out; he has to go to the court. That is not the case with the agricultural workers. They are at the tender mercies of the farmer or the landlord. They can be thrown out without any notice. It is not necessary to take them to court. We say that that is a scandalous state of affairs that the peasantry are being treated in this manner, not only thrown out of work but thrown out of their homes:
See yonder poor o'erlabour'd wight,
So abject, mean, and vile,
Who begs a brother of the earth
To give him leave to toil;
And see his lordly fellow-worm
The poor petition spurn,
Unmindful the a weepiag wife
And helpless offspring mourn.
Following those lines Burns said:
If I'm design'd yon lordling's slave—
By nature's law designed—
Why was an independent wish
E'er planted in my mind?
It is that independent wish and that independent mind that are abroad in the land to-day asking for equal treatment for the people in our rural districts; for that same treatment that we have fought for and won for ourselves in the big industrial centres. The Parliamentary Secretary understands the position as well as I do. He stated the same case in the House when he was on the Liberal benches as a back bencher. I hope that he is not going to stand up to-day and tell us that because he is a member of the Government he has to speak with the voice of the Government. I hope that he will be big enough to-day to tell us that, having heard the case stated by Labour, he is prepared to bring the matter before the Government in order that the new Clause may be included in the Act of Parliament.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise in a personal capacity to support the Clause, because I feel that in all these matters it is a question of the balance of argument and, in my view, the balance in this instance is in favour and not against the Clause. The House ought to realise that it is the intention of the previous Acts, in conjunction with this Bill, to protect the tenant in so far as it is considered reasonable that the tenant should be protected. If the Schedule means what it says, it is perfectly clear that it is still intended that the court shall have discretion in regard to such tenancies as exist in consequence of a man's employment. I cannot see an enormous distinction between a tenancy which is created at a small rental in consequence of a man's employment and the occupation of a house which exists for no rental in consequence of a man's employment. In each of these cases a person gets occupation of a house because he has taken on some specific employment, and in those circumstances the Legislature has considered it necessary to provide that the court shall have discretion whether a person shall be turned out of the premises or not when the employment finishes in the case of those who have been given the tenancy of a house in consequence of employment.
That being the case, why should it be held that a different argument prevails with regard to a man who is given occupation of the house in which the rental goes with his employment? Can it be suggested that if a man has been in a particular employment for a number of years and suddenly finds himself deprived of that employment, the hardship upon him of leaving the house is any the less merely because he is not paying rent for the house? Surely, that cannot be contended. If the accommodation was given in part payment of wages, the fact remains that the hardship will ensue and that he and his family, if they have to leave the house, may be placed in such a serious position that the court may consider that they ought not to be turned out. Why anyone should draw a distinction between the two cases, I cannot see. The First Schedule provides that the court may make an order for the ejectment of a tenant, without proof of suitable alternative accommodation, subject to certain considerations which, according to paragraph (g), include the following, that
the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into, and either—
(i) the tenant was in the employment of the landlord or a former landlord, and the dwelling-house was let to him in consequence of that employment and he has ceased to be in that employment.
That presents a sufficient safeguard. I think that the court should have the right to exercise its discretion in the ease referred to in the Amendment. If the court came to the conclusion that the tenant should be allowed to remain, it would, of course, state what the rent should be. Similar powers are given in other parts of the Bill. If the tenant would not pay the rent, he would be in the position of one who could be turned out by virtue of this Bill, which will shortly become an Act. I hope the Government will accept the position from that standpoint, and that they will not consider that where a house has been occupied in consequence of employment the person who has been employed for years and then ceases to be so employed should immediately find other accom-
modation. If the court decided that alternative accommodation was available they would make an order that the person should move. Even if one single case of hardship should ensue, without such discretion the court should have the discretion to say whether or not the person should be turned out.

Mr. LOGAN: The hon. Member suggests that the court has the power, in a case where no rent has been paid previously, to declare what the rent should be.

Mr. JANNER: I said that there might be similar provision, but if it is not there, that matter might very easily be remedied. I cannot put my hand on the particular section I had in mind, but it is a matter that might easily be remedied by an Amendment.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. RHYS: I hope that the Government will not accept the proposed new Clause. The whole argument this afternoon has gone on the lines that the landlord is always wrong and the tenant is always right. It might well be that the landlord had not given his employé notice, but that the employé had given the employer notice. He might have obtained employment on a neighbouring farm. Anyone who has had anything to do with working an agricultural estate knows how essential it is that the stockman and the horseman should occupy cottages in close proximity to their employment. It might be impossible for the employer to find another cottage for the new stockman or horseman in place of the cottage occupied by the outgoing employé, who may have left entirely of his own free will, and yet under this proposed Clause he would be able to remain in the cottage he then occupied. I do not wish to impose any hardship on any tenant, but I am sure that in practice the new Clause would lead to complete chaos in the working of an agricultural estate.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I should like to give a few reasons why I think the Government ought to accept the Clause. It would not be doing an injustice to give security to the agricultural labourer, seeing that at the present time the landlord has power to turn a tenant into the street if he is
not prepared to keep him in his service any longer. Surely, in 1933 there is nothing wrong in asking for a Clause of this description. Let us take the case of a man who enters a new service, where the employer says: "Here is a grand opportunity for you. You take it!" Later some difficulty arises and the employer says: "I do not want you any longer." There has been no question of rental; it has been a question of service. He has not only the power of saying, "I am finished with you in your occupation" but also the power of turning the man into the street. To take occupation of a house under those conditions is to jeopardise your future, and no hon. Member would be willing that anyone should have the power of turning a man instantaneously into the street.
The proposed new Clause simply asks that the case should be referred to the court. If there is any justice at all in our courts—I think there is—the judge or the magistrate will deal equitably with these cases. I am sure the Government will recognise that a tenancy which enables an employer, no matter what the case may be, to turn a man and his wife and children out of a home at once is not Christian or moral in the year 1933. I know that most employers to-day would be reasonable and would give a man an opportunity of getting other accommodation, but there are other cases which are the exception. I want to provide against the inhuman men, those who may have a vendetta against an employé. The man who has a fellow feeling would not turn a man and his wife and children out of their home at once but would give him a fortnight or a month to find other accommodation. The other man might tell him to get out at once, and in those circumstances he has no redress. I hope the Government will accept this Clause and give the man the right of appeal to the court. It is a reasonable appeal. It would make the Bill much better and give someone an opportunity of saying that at last we have a Minister in a National Government who is sane and who will listen to an Amendment moved from another part of the House.

6.19 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I am afraid that the Gov-
ernment cannot accept this proposed new Clause. It seeks to bring within the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts tied cottages in cases where no rent is payable. The present Bill is a temporary Measure, to continue rent restriction for another five years; and the House will agree that we should not be justified, in what is a temporary Measure, in dealing with the difficult question of the tied cottage. In fact, it was excluded from the review of the Marley Committee and a special committee was set up under an old colleague of mine, Mr. Walter Smith. After a careful review the members of this special committee came to two entirely different conclusions, as, in fact, any committee on this subject always will. The question of the tied cottage is not a question of right against wrong, but of right against right. The most difficult problems are those of right against right. You have the perfectly right case put by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price, who said that it was a great hardship that a man should be turned out of his cottage on account of his political opinions. Most people know of cases where that has, in fact, happened. On the other hand, you have the right of an employer to limit the occupation of a particular cottage to some particular employment, and only so long as that employment remains. That is perfectly understandable and justifiable.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) has put the case as regards agriculture. It is absolutely essential that those engaged in certain classes of agricultural employment, like stockmen, should live near to their work and that the cottage should depend solely on the particular employment. Suppose that the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) bought a country house with a nice little cottage attached for a chauffeur and said to the chauffeur, "As long as you are here, I will give you this cottage." The chauffeur goes out and gets drunk and kills a man; he is hopeless as a chauffeur and my hon. Friend wants to get rid of him. Is he going to say that he is precluded from getting a new chauffeur in the place of a drunken and inefficient chauffeur, because he cannot give the new one the cottage which is the only available accommodation he has? That is not a reasonable proposal—

Mr. JANNER: The Parliamentary Secretary has put a very good case, but on my behalf he might add that in such circumstances he has to satisfy the court it is reasonable that the man should be turned out.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Anyone accepts service occupation of a particular cottage only as long as that occupation is maintained, and if you look at it from the point of view of my hon. Friend in hiring a chauffeur, or a farmer hiring a stockman, or a railway company giving a cottage at a level crossing to a particular man, it is obvious that you must have some system of tied cottages. That being so the Government cannot accept the new Clause. Incidentally, it would introduce an entirely new principle into the rent restriction code. The Rent Restrictions Acts, as the name implies, restrict rent, and security is only incidental to that, but security has never been given when, in fact, no rent has been paid. Therefore, the proposal from many points of view is not acceptable and it is outside the scope of a Measure like the present one, which is only of a temporary character.

Mr. PIKE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in many eases where a landlord has leased a farm to a tenant farmer the tenant farmer lets many of these tied cottages to persons who do not work on the farm, and that if he has a farm labourer of whom he wants to dispose quickly he does not consider the fact that he has other houses on the farm, but turns the farm hand out to suit his own convenience? While I am not in full agreement with the proposed new Clause, I think there is a case into which the Government might inquire, where great hardship may be inflicted.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: One of the arguments of the Parliamentary Secretary was that these were cases in which no rent was payable. May I suggest to the House that although actually no rent passes, the cottage is taken into consideration when the question of wages is negotiated, and that the man does, in fact, pay rent for the cottage because he gets so many shillings per week less in wages. There is no reason why the position of this man should be made worse than that of any other man who actually pays rent in
so many shillings per week. Anything which could be done to ease the burden of the tied cottage, or to weaken and ultimately sweep the system away altogether, would be much better for the agricultural labourer, who is chiefly concerned, and for agriculture itself. After all the proposed new Clause does very little. All it does is to take out of the hands of the farmer or the employer the right to turn a man and his wife and children out of the cottage. It still leaves the employer the right to get the man to vacate the cottage, but it gives the man the chance to take his case to court, and I suggest that you are not weakening the position of the employer very much in doing so.
The Parliamentary Secretary must know as well as I do the victimisation which goes on, and the many agricultural labourers who have been turned out of their cottages and their employment through no fault of their own, but because they happen to have different political opinions from their employers. The hon. Member says it is not a question of right and wrong but a question of the right of the employer and the right of the workman. This House should allow no man to tyrannise over another. If there is one particular weapon which is still exercised, and which is terrible in its way, it is the tyranny of an employer who can not only discharge a man but turn him into the streets at his whim, over perhaps some small matter. It is not a question of some chauffeur who is in possession of a cottage and who gets drunk and kills a man. That is not the point at all. In 99 cases out of 100 it is simply the whim and pleasure of the employer. As one who has done something in his lifetime to stop the living-in system, which is comparable with this kind of thing, and has been swept away in our industrial areas, I say that the tendency of the times is to give a man, however humble, the right to his own soul and his own independence. That is a principle which this House should uphold at any time.
I am sorry to think, from the attitude of the Minister, that the numbers behind the Government will vote against this Clause. The House and the Government know that this question of the tied cottage must be dealt with if agriculture is to play in the country's life
the part about which we hear so much. What inducement is there for young men to marry and to live in agricultural areas if they have the knowledge all the time of the tremendous power over their lives, and almost over their death, of the employer? The feel that they are in the position of slaves, that they are unable to give vent to their convictions. I have been at meetings in agricultural villages where I felt ashamed of my own countrymen. Men and women have been afraid even of saying "Hear, hear," for fear the farmer might get to know of it and they might lose their cottage and be thrown into the highway.
The proposed Clause attempts to give to this particular class of individual the same rights and liberties under the law as are conceded already to 90 per cent. of the population. I am unable to understand why any hon. Member should imagine that it is imperative to deal with the agricultural labourer in a different way from the vast Majority of the workers of the country. One hon. Member said that if the Clause were added to the Bill it would bring chaos into the agricultural areas. He suggested that it might have the effect even of taking away the prosperity of the countryside. It is the first time I ever heard there was any prosperity in the countryside. No words of mine will make the Minister change his mind, but I wonder how it is that the appeal of this Government still continues to have any attraction at all for the agricultural labourer. This principle of the tied cottage is bad. It is not a question of right on the part of employers, for the whole thing is wrong.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: The proposed new Clause does not really raise as large an issue or create such a sweeping change as has been suggested. The hardship which has been spoken of, with regard to the landlord who lets a piece of property in connection with an occupation, and who thinks it necessary to have his employer in possession of the premises—that hardship exists in the case where a very small rent is payable just as much as in the case where no rent is payable. When the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment. it will be open to the court to say that the land-
lord is right, that he does reasonably want the premises; and the court can make the order, so that the landlord can get on with his business. I think the Parliamentary Secretary was quite right when he said that this was a case of right against right, and not of right against wrong. The hon. Member who spoke last sees the wrong of the evicted tenant so strongly that he finds it difficult to see any right on the landlord's side. But there is right on each side. What more suitable case could there be for going to the court, for calling in an impartial person? That is a most reasonable thing to suggest.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: It seemed to me that the Parliamentary Secretary gave the case away when he said it was well known that men sometimes lost their houses because of their opinions. We do not say that all landlords are ogres by any means. It is well known, however, that men who are disorganised and separated from each other by long distances are often in a very difficult position. Sometimes they are severely penalised in losing their work and their houses. One of my hon. Friends spoke of ejectments in mining villages. I am glad to say that that horrible state of things has not prevailed in recent years to anything like the extent that it used to prevail. It is almost unknown in cases of differences with the coalowners. Some most tragic experiences have come to people who in the past, when they were not organised but spontaneously stood to defend their conditions and wages and refused to work, found themselves thrown out into the fields. But with the increasing strength of organisation amongst the miners, and the growth of public opinion that kind of ejection has happily come to an end. If it was possible to have similar organisation in the countryside I have not the slightest doubt that the labourers there would be in much the same position as the miners. The fact remains that they are at a disadvantage.
Not many years ago I spoke in a village which is well known as the site of one of the decisive bAttlee in the history of the country. I naturally expected that place to be brimming over with liberty. I found at the meeting a chairman and about two more people. I do not know whether it was my eloquence that kept
the audience away. In 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour I was about to throw up the sponge, but the chairman encouraged me and told me it was all right. He seemed to think that we were having a good meeting. We were, for people were listening at the doors and the windows. They dare not come to that meeting publicly. That is a state of things that prevails in some villages. It is time that the Government took steps for the defence of these people. Some Government will have to do it in the near future, I am convInced.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There is nothing with which the average Member has more sympathy than the idea of a man losing both house and job at the same time; but the fact that the house and the work go together in a large number of cases does mean that the double hardship is bound to happen. I have listened to the speeches of the Socialist Members. They are not free from blame themselves. I can remember an occasion when the whole Socialist party combined to turn a man out of his house suddenly and without notice, and allowed him only a few hours to get out. Naturally I refer to Number 10 Downing Street. That was the case of a house going with a job. I saw just now the First Lord of the Admiralty. A Government defeat would mean his being turned out of his house and his job. It is exactly the same with people, whoever they are, who take on a job with the knowledge from the beginning that they take it with a house, that the two things go together, and that the job cannot be carried on without the house.
At the present time, in certain areas of the country, there is going on a development which will require a great many more men to be put to work. Socialist Members are just as keen as we are in trying to get the condition of agriculture better. Suppose the question arises of developing vegetable ground by highly intensive cultivation. The work may require so many more men, and in some cases it is not a matter of being able to get the men from a neighbouring town or village. Men may be required for some definite purpose and an owner may sink several hundreds of pounds in building, perhaps two new cottages for the purpose of accommodating the par-
ticular men whom he requires for a particular job. In that he is doing something to help the general level of employment.
This is not a question of good or bad landlords. I know that there are both good and bad landlords as there is good and bad in nearly everything else in this world, but under the proposed new Clause the inevitable tendency must be to discourage people from developments of that kind. I know of instances in small villages where if the Post Office, the railway and the police authorities provided good houses for the people whom they employed—the house, of course, going with the job in each case—they would do much to help in solving the housing difficulty in those villages. If there is one thing more necessary than another at the present time it is not to discourage employers who have Capttal from developing their land and putting their money into it and building houses. We are not here discussing the whole question of the tied house system but that question has been raised incidentally, and an endeavour has been made to give a certain atmosphere to the discussion. I ask those hon. Members who, like myself, have a natural sympathy with people in the condition which has been described, to remember that in the interests of the labourers themselves it is better that that system should continue and that people should be encouraged to develop the countryside and to build houses. In all departments of life we see the same system, under which the job and the house go together, and I cannot see why in one particular branch of industry you should seek to cut out that system unless you are going to make the argument applicable to every other kind of case.

6.48 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I know the atmosphere to which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) has referred, because in a constituency which I contested I found that, as regards several of the villages, I could only hold my meetings in the open air, after dark and on nights when there was no moon. My immediate audience appeared to consist only of a couple of sleeping dogs but the people of the village were round the corner or in the neighbouring shops and luckily I have a very strong voice
if I choose to use it. But what connection the agricultural labourer has with this proposed New Clause I fail to see. I think if one thing is certain, it is that the new Clause does not apply to the agricultural worker at all. There is no contract with the agricultural worker under which no rent is recoverable. There is a rent recoverable from the agricultural worker. True, it is a rent limited under the provision of the Agricultural Wages Board's Acts It is not always the same for each county but in every case that I have ever heard of—and I was a member of the first Agricultural Wages Board—a rent; is recoverable and is in fact recovered though it may be limited to 2s. 6d. or 3s.
Therefore when we vote on this proposed new Clause, whether for it or against it, let us not have in mind that we are affecting the agricultural labourer in the slightest degree. As a matter of fact the agricultural labourer has a good deal of protection. It is necessary now to go twice to the court to get an agricultural worker out of his cottage. An owner can give such a worker notice because he is too old, or because, instead of a stockman, a horseman is required, on the farm, or, perhaps the worker himself has given notice and is going to work for somebody else. The farmer has to prove to one court that he needs the cottage for the cultivation of his farm. If it can be shown that some other cottage can be obtained, he has then to show that he needs possession of that particular cottage for the proper cultivation of his farm, in order to put in a man of the necessary skill and experience. He has also to show that the man is engaged and is willing to come to him and so forth. That having been decided, if the worker still stays on in the cottage—as he frequently does being unable to get another house—the farmer has to go to court again in a month and get an ejectment order and in another month he can get vacant possession. The idea that there is no protection of a court for the agricultural worker is an error and the idea that by passing this new Clause we shall be helping the agricultural worker is another error.

6.51 p.m.

Major MILNER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) has given us a new view of
the law, and one, apparently, which was not within the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary. I cannot claim to have the same experience as the hon. Baronet, but in my experience Since the War I have known many cases in which farmers have taken the law into their own hands and, without going to court, have turned agricultural labourers out of their cottages. I know of no reason why two applications to the court should be made. Solicitors in country districts acting in cases where a tenancy is not in existence and where a man occupies by reason of his employment frequently take those cases to the court, but it is questionable whether in law they are bound to do so. I believe that, in the case of an agricultural labourer, or a caretaker, or a man who by reason of his employment has to live on the premises, in law when his employment ceases that man is in the position of a trespasser and can be turned out lock, stock and barrel. Whether that is so or not in law, in practice that has been done and is being done in some areas.
The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this was a serious matter to deal with in a temporary measure which would only cover the period of the next five years. I would reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith). The proposed new Clause provides that it shall not be possible for an employer to turn out a servant who holds a dwelling house in connection with his employment, without first going to the court. The hon. Member pointed out that under the present law it is possible for an employer to go to the court and satisfy them that he has a contract with a new employé and that it is reasonable to demand possession. In the case of the agricultural labourer, however, there is a special provision which is very frequently acted upon by owners. The farmer communicates with the county council and obtains a certificate from the county agricultural committee to the effect that he requires a new employé for the purpose of working his farm. He goes with that certificate to the court and in that case, on the certificate, or, in the other case, on evidence of his having entered into a contract, the court makes an order for possession. In the case of a petty sessional court the order has to take
effect within a period, I think, of three weeks or 30 days. All that the new Clause asks is that in the present state of the law, before a man can be turned out application must be made to the court so that in these cases the ex-employé shall be given a little time. A month is not a great deal of time to ask for in the exceptional cases where such a position arises.
In the Majority of cases the employer makes temporary arrangements for the accommodation of his new employé until the old employé has gone. He either arranges for him to travel to his work from some distance away, or finds him some other accommodation. There is no possibility of the chaos which seemed to suggest itself to the mind of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys). In my view this is not a case of right against right, but of right against wrong. There is no comparison between the mere inconvenience and possible slight expense incurred by an employer in having to make such arrangements as I have indicated for a month or so, and the case of the agricultural labourer who frequently has a large family and who is put out on the street at a time when he has no means to obtain other accommodation. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) gave us an instance which appeared to be very valuable when he told us that the Socialist party had conspired in September, 1931, to get rid of the then occupant of No. 10, Downing Street. What in fact was done—whether we did it or not—was that an appeal was made to the court and we lost the case. Therefore the hon. Member ought to be voting with us in this matter. He ought to agree that in this case also it should be possible to go to the court.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: rose—

Major MILNER: I presume the hon. Member is anxious to say that the verdict in that case was obtained on false evidence. He may also be about to point out that in this case, fortunately, we shall have an opportunity of a further appeal to the same court at an early date, when we hope to obtain a verdict.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I merely desired to point out that I was referring to the Socialist party's brutal treatment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) in 1929. As
regards the later occasion, in that case there was no eviction, but there was in 1929.

Major MILNER: There is no comparison between, the two cases because the right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has alternative accommodation. I hope the Mover of the proposed new Clause will go to a Division and test the feeling of the House on this matter. In my view those who vote against it vote for a continuance of the present conditions under which a man and his wife and children can be turned into the street at a moment's notice. There is no justification for the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that the new Clause would make a wide breach in the Rent Restrictions Acts. These Acts at present restrict the rights of landlords with regard to obtaining possession. The proposed new Clause relates to precisely the same thing. The landlord, who is an employer, can get possession of his property by throwing his employé into the street. We restrict that. We wish the employé to be able to go before an impartial tribunal which will say whether it is reasonable for his employer to have the house. I hope the House will insist upon the Government carrying through this necessary and most needed reform.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The hon. Member continues to harp on the question of the agricultural labourer, although it has

been pointed out by the right hon. Baronet that this Clause has nothing to do with the agricultural labourer. In the case to which the hon. Member referred, of an agricultural labourer being turned out under the Act, that was illegal, and will continue to be illegal. It will not be affected by this Clause, which is only a "lawyer's relief." In cases where occupiers, by service right, lose their employment, and their houses are needed for their successors, the court can give only one possible decision, because these cottages are part of the wages of the employés. No hon. Member opposite has suggested that when an employé has lost his employment his employer should pay him cash wages. Why should an employer give such a man a proportion of his wages in housing accommodation? The ultimate result would not be affected by the Clause. It would only cause considerable inconvenience and actual hardship to an employer who dispensed with the work of an employé, before application could be made to the court. The only people who would benefit would be the lawyers engaged to argue the case.

Major MILNER: May I ask the Solicitor-General to help the House in this matter?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 51; Noes, 273.

Division No. 168.]
AYES.
[7.4 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Briant, Frank
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
John, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lawson, John James
White, Henry Graham


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Balniel, Lord


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Asks, Sir Robert William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Allen. William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)


Amary, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portem'th.C.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.


Bernays, Robert
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Psto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Hacking, Rt, Hon. Douglas H.
Pike, Cecil F.


Borodale, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hammersley, Samuel S.
PowNail, Sir Assheton


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Braithwaite, Maj.A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartland, George A.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Heid, William Allan (Derby)


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Remer, John R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Burghley, Lord
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Robinson, John Roland


Burnett, John George
Hopkinson. Austin
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hornby, Frank
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Butler, Richard Austen
Horobin, Ian M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Campbell, vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Scone, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Selley, Harry R.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Captain William T. (Foriar)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cooper, A. Dull
Kimball, Lawrence
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cowan, D. M.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookthank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Leckie, J. A.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaineb'ro)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Crossley, A. C.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Spens, William Patrick


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Loder, Captain J, de Vere
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Denville, Alfred
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Dickie, John P.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Storey, Samuel


Donner, P. W.
Mabane, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Doran, Edward
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dower, Captain A, V. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Duckworth, George A. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Summersby, Charles H.


Eastwood, John Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Maitland, Adam
Thompson, Luke


Elmley, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Turton, Robert Hugh


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Adrian C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, William Shepherd
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Munro, Patrick
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Nail, Sir Joseph
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Goldie, Noel B.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nunn, William
Withers, Sir John James


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Patrick, Colin M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Granville, Edgar
Peake, Captain Osbert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Penny, Sir George



Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Capt. Rt. Han. F. E.
Petherick, M.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major




George Davies.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on levy of distress for rent.)

So long as the principal Acts continue in force no distress for the rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts have ceased to apply by virtue of this Act or of section two of the Act of 1923 shall be levied except with the leave of the county court, and the court shall, with respect to any application for such leave, have the same or similar powers with respect to adjournment, stay, suspension, postponement, and otherwise as are conferred by the principal Acts as amended by this Act in relation to applications for the recovery of possession.—[Mr. Tinker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is intended to give to occupiers of decontrolled houses some kind of protection in relation to the levying of distress. There is no question about the amount of rent, but we are seeking by this Clause to give the occupiers some justice when they are threatened with being turned out of their houses. The landlord has power to increase rent almost to any point he desires. It has been stated that decontrolled houses under the Act of 1923 have had their rents increased by 85 per cent., as against 40 per cent. to 50 per cent., which shows the powers in the hands of landlords with respect to decontrolled houses. We wish to do something to check that sort of thing. We want the matter to be made public before a landlord can turn out a person who cannot keep up with his rent. A man may have an excessive rent, and a landlord is able to turn him out without redress. Some kind of protection should be given to him, especially as this Act will mean putting many more houses under decontrol. Class "A" houses will be altogether decontrolled. Class "B" houses will be largely decontrolled. Class "C" houses will remain as they are. Under the 1923 Act it is even worse. Many houses, even of a poor type, have been allowed to become decontrolled under the 1923 Act. Although we know we cannot bring them back under control—that was thrashed out in the Committee stage—we now seek to give them some form of protection against imposition by the landlord. I do not think it is too much to ask the Minister to give consideration to this Clause, seeing that we are dealing with
a very big Measure indeed. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister of Health said:
We shall be dealing with one of the most intimate needs of the community as applied to no fewer than 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 houses, and, interpreted into human lives, we shall be dealing with conditions that very closely affect between 25,000,000 and 30,000,000 of our fellow countrymen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1932; col. 47; Vol. 273.]
So this is a big matter, with regard to both controlled houses and decontrolled houses. The Minister may have been quite right when he said that the law of supply and demand would keep rents down, but we are afraid that the demand for houses will be over and above what the supply will be and that therefore the landlords will be given immense power to increase rents. It is to put some kind of stop to the rapacity of the landlords, which has been proved by the statement of the Minister with regard to the decontrolled conditions of 1923, that we move this Clause. When this Bill is passed, in September of this year, power will again pass into the hands of the landlords to do just as they like with the tenants of decontrolled houses, not only under the 1923 Act, but under this Measure as well. Those houses will contain a large proportion of the 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 people who, the Minister has said, expect some protection from this House in these matters. I hope we shall not have the kind of answer that we have had on previous Clauses, that this matter has been dealt with in Committee. I believe that this has not been dealt with in Committee, but is quite a new feature, and, therefore, I hope it will receive consideration from the Government.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. CAPE: I beg to second the Motion.
I hope the Government will not tell us that all these things were thoroughly discussed in Committee, and I suggest that there has been time between the Committee stage and now for the Government to repent of some of the statements made by them on that occasion. I feel confident that the Solicitor-General will do what he thinks right, if at any time it is shown that he has been in the wrong. This Clause is intended to remedy what was one of the most cruel and brutal things that we had in this country prior
to the introduction of rent restriction. Eviction for rent due was always looked upon as one of the most brutal methods of obtaining a debt that was known to the community or the legal profession, and we ask that in the recovery of any debt in the shape of rent the debtor should have a fair chance of appealing to a court of law. We ask in this Clause that the matter should be taken to the county court, and the judge given the right to stay execution until the case has been thoroughly investigated. That is only elementary justice.
The tenant of a house who is in arrears with his rent owing to circumstances over which he has had no control, such as iliness, or unemployment, or part employment, is liable to have his goods scheduled, and before he knows where he is the law is put into operation. Surely, it is right to ask that that class of people should be brought up to the ordinary level of other people against whom civil action may be taken, and surely this House has sufficient faith and trust in the courts of this land to give these people the right of appeal to the courts. Our county court judges have all had long legal experience and are thoroughly trained in the law, and I know of no more competent persons than they would be to adjudicate in cases of this kind. If this Clause was accepted, it might be that the judge, through his influence and advice, might be able to find a way whereby some arrangement could be come to and the man assessed to pay off so much a week of the accumulated rent.
In common fairness to the tenant and to the landlord as well, therefore, it might be a good thing to accept this Clause. But my strong point is that these people should be brought up to the ordinary level of the law of this country and given the same rights as other people who may find themselves in debt. Immediately a house goes out of control the old, obsolete law comes into operation, and I appeal to the Government to consider this new Clause, and to show that they intend, as far as possible, to give every protection to the tenant and every justice to the landlord at the same time, so that both will have a fair chance of having their case stated in the court and heard by a competent judge.

7.24 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I can assure both the Mover and the Seconder of this Clause that I will not use the argument that the Clause was fully debated in Committee and disposed of there. As far as I can recollect, it was not put forward at all, in this form at any rate. But this is not a case in which second thoughts are best. It is not, for reasons that I shall try to explain, really a good Clause even though it was not put forward on the Committee stage. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) says the Clause is designed to get rid of a brutal method of obtaining payment of a debt. There may be something to be said for getting rid of the law of distress altogether. I am not in the least admitting that that is so, but let it be assumed for the sake of argument that there is something to be said for that contention. In my submission, there is nothing whatever to be said for dealing with that question on this Bill, and applying it only to the particular case of houses which formerly were controlled but have become decontrolled.
The hon. Member for Workington was right when he said that under the Acts as they exist, so long as a house is controlled no distress can be levied without application to the court, and what the hon. Members have done is to lift from the Act of 1920 the Section which gives that protection to the sitting, statutory tenant, and have sought to apply it to what will happen with regard to houses decontrolled under this Bill. But they have not even stopped there. They have added that it is also to apply—and there is to be no right of distress without leave of the court—with regard to any house which has at any time become decontrolled and which becomes decontrolled in the future. They are going to make it retrospective, with regard to any house which has become decontrolled at any time during the last 10 years when decontrol has operated, and they are going henceforward to say, with regard to that house, as distinct from all other houses in the street or district which are governed by the ordinary law of the land, that the landlord may not get distress. I suggest that it is quite impossible to justify a distinction of that sort between houses which happen to have been controlled 10 years ago, in occupation of
which there is at present, not the original statutory tenant, but, let us say, a man in the fifth succession from him, and who is just an ordinary tenant under the ordinary law. Just because, 10 years ago, that house was controlled and became decontrolled, you are going to have a different law applying there. I suggest to the House that that would be quite unjustifiable.
Now let us take only the houses which are being decontrolled by this Bill, namely, the "A" group of houses. Under this Bill we are providing that, before decontrol operates fully, the landlord of such a house must give a notice. He either gives a notice or he does not. If he does, the result is one of two things; either the tenant enters into a new agreement, upon new terms, in which case he is just like any ordinary tenant of a house which is not controlled and who chooses to enter into an agreement with his landlord, with regard to whom the ordinary law of distress applies; or, on the other hand, he does not consent to enter into this agreement, and he goes out. The house becomes decontrolled, and not the sitting tenant but some other tenant enters into a voluntary agreement with the landlord. I put it to hon. Members that there is no reason whatever why either the statutory tenant who has agreed to take on a new tenancy, or a new tenant who has come in and made a voluntary agreement with the landlord, should be treated any differently from the rest of the tenants up and down the country.
If you like, bring in a Bill to abolish the law of distress with regard to all tenants, but do not seek to apply it sectioNaily to people who happen to be tenants of houses which have become decontrolled. In the other case, the case in which the landlord does not choose to give a notice, there is no need for this Clause at all, because so long as the landlord gives no notice, even though the house comes within the "A" category, the old terms and conditions still apply until the landlord gives notice, and the result would be that the old Section which protects the tenant from distress for rent would also continue to apply. For these reasons, I invite the House, if the matter is pressed to a Division, to reject the Clause.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I am surprised at the attitude of the learned Solicitor-General, in view of the statements that have been made by the Government speakers that they were acting on the recommendations of a Joint Committee representative of all political parties in the House. I am wondering whether the Solicitor-General has read the report of that committee. In paragraph 113 the committee says:
There is one further aspect of the general situation brought about by control which we think should be mentioned. The tenancy of the better-class house is usually regulated by an agreement for a period of years entered into by the landlord and tenant, but the working-class tenant usually holds his house on a weekly tenancy. Accordingly, before the Rent Restrictions Acts were passed, the working-class tenant could be turned out of his house at a week's notice. For 16 years this fear has been removed from his mind. The working-class tenant who pays his rent has been given almost complete security of tenure during all these years, and now attaches as much importance to this as to the restricted rent. We think that when the shortage! of working-class houses is ended, so that final decontrol may safely be enacted, it will probably still be necessary to take this fact into account by making some permanent provision to ensure that, whether or not rents are payable weekly, a notice to quit shall not be effective in the case of houses in Class "C" until after the expiration of some specified period, such as six clear weeks from the date of the notice.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I had read that paragraph, but it has no bEarlng whatever on what we are discussing. The Committee in this paragraph is talking about the turning out of tenants of houses in spite of the fact that they pay their rent. We here are talking about, not the turning out of tenants at all, but the levying of distress on their goods and chattels because they do not pay their rent. The two things are absolutely different.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am trying to put to the Solicitor-General the arguments of my hon. Friends. There are hundreds of thousands of working-class houses which have already been decontrolled. I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means when he talks about distress. What happens in Scotland is that a tenant who fails to pay his rent is brought before the court. It is not a question of sequestrating his furniture, but of getting an eviction order against
him. Hundreds of thousands of working-class people have been deprived, and will be deprived, of anything in the nature of security against that. That is a point with which we are seeking to deal in this Clause; we are trying to ensure that the recommendation of the Committee shall be respected by the Government and that they shall accept the proposed Clause in accordance with that recommendation. If it is not in the best words, we shall not quarrel if the Government can find better words. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General tried to cloud the issue by the use of a number of meaningless words. [Laughter.] It is easy for hon. Gentlemen on that side to be cynical, but it is not a laughing matter to the working class. A good many of them are being threatened with a condition of things that is not known to the Majority of the Members who support the Government. I have some experience of this sort of thing ranging back for a considerable number of years. I have never said that the working man is an angel—nor are employers for that matter—and we are anxious that there should be some security against a tenant being turned out—

Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Gentleman is saying has nothing to do with the new Clause.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Solicitor-General said that no tenants are likely to be turned out. I want to know whether, if a tenant in a decontrolled house fails to pay his rent, it is not the intention of the Government that he should be brought before the court? I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter, but I do not expect much from them because they are absolutely brutal in their attitude in this question.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I regret the easy and off-hand way in which the Solicitor-General dealt with this matter. May I put to him such a case as that of a tenant who wrote to me this morning on his own behalf and on behalf of a number of other tenants living in his street? The controlled rent of the houses in that street is 10s. 6d. a week and of the decontrolled houses 16s. The tenants have just received notice from the landlord that after a certain date a week or two ahead, the 16s. rent will be further increased to £1 a week, and that if they do not like it
they can get out. Can they get out, and where are they to go? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be good enough to inform me where these tenants are to go. The last figures, which are three weeks old, show that there are 3,085 applications at Walthamstow Town Hall for houses in the borough. There are no houses available—

Mr. SPEAKER: As I read this new Clause, what the hon. Member is talking about has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the levying of distress for the non-payment of rent.

Mr. McENTEE: I am coming to that, and it is a point to which I want to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General. Have these tenants to accept or reject that increased rent? If they refuse the landlord's ultimatum, there is no accommodation for them elsewhere, and if they refuse to get out because they cannot get any other accommodation, the landlord will levy distress. What will happen to these people? The man who writes to me has a wife and three children. The landlord will levy distress for the pound a week when he fixes that rent after a certain time. The man will not be able to pay it, and the tenants who are similarly situated to him in the same street will not be able to pay it either. This man cannot get out because he cannot find any other accommodation. He may perhaps be ejected, or the landlord may take the course of levying a distress. Is it in the power of the landlord, if the tenants do not get out and the rent accumulates, to levy a distress? Of course it is, and the Solicitor-General knows it perfectly well. Their goods can be seized and they will be left in the position of having no house or household goods, and a family to support on a small wage.
The Solicitor-General appears to be terribly upset at the suggestion that protection should be given to certain classes of people which is not given to other people. The classes of people who would be protected under this new Clause would be three—people living in houses which have already been decontrolled, people living in houses which will become decontrolled under this Bill, and people living in houses which may in future become decontrolled because of a change of tenancy. Does anybody say that because certain other people have
not the same form of protection of the court, these tenants should not have that protection? These people need protection and control because the great bulk of them are extremely poor. I ask the Solicitor-General even now to do as hon. Gentlemen have asked him, to repent and to give these people the protection of the court so that the landlord cannot seize their goods when the rent accumulates, or when the rent is so grossly extortionate as in the case to which I have referred. In that case the rent is to be put up practically 100 per cent. Many of the tenants cannot pay it, there is no accommodation for them elsewhere, their goods may be seized, and they will have no protection of the court, but will be left at the will and mercy of a type of landlord, such as the one to whom I am referring, who is utterly unscrupulous and cares nothing for the well-being of his tenants as long as he makes a huge profit out of the houses which, unfortunately, the law permits him to hold.
I ask the Solicitor-General to give the protection which the proposed new Clause seeks to give, in the interests of humanity and those unfortunate, poor people whose small household goods will be seized in many cases, and to give them some form of protection to go to the court and to let the court decide whether the landlord has a right to seize their goods. I put this point to the Solicitor-General, because he knows the courts much better than I do; but I have some experience of courts which deal with applications by landlords against poor tenants, and I find that county court judges are humane men and endeavour to give all the protection which the law permits to these poor tenants. If the landlord were compelled to ask the court for permisison to levy distress, I think that in many cases the county court judge might be able to devise means which would give protection to the tenant, and, at the same time, give some reasonable conditions to the landlord, if the landlord were inclined to be reasonable; and if he were not inclined to be reasonable the court would be able to judge him for what he was, and give the tenant the protection which would be deserved.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that the principal object of this new Clause is to see that people who occupy houses which have passed from control—either houses decontrolled in the future or houses which have become decontrolled Since the operation of the Act of 1923—shall not be evicted from their homes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Well, that is what I gather from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). He and I have experience of the Scottish courts, and I think that he and I are on common ground in saying that the object, as far as Scotland is concerned, is to say that those who occupy decontrolled houses should have the protection of the courts.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This Clause has nothing to do with the question of eviction. Eviction does not come into this question at all. The levying of distress is a form of common law execution on goods for the payment of Tent. The Clause does not touch the question of the possession of the premises. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) will find that the observations they have been making will be more to the point on the next proposed new Clause.

Mr. BUCHANAN: These cases in which they sue for accumulated arrears of rent are taken in Scotland in what we call the small debt court. The process is called "pinding," or "poinding," according to the part of the country from which a man comes. The factor who wishes to levy distress must take the tenant to court, whether it be a decontrolled house or not. Even if it is a new house, the factor who wants to sell up a tenant's furniture cannot do so without a warrant from the court. There is another practice in Scotland called sequestration—or sometimes it is called serving a keyhole summons—though I would say, in common fairness to the factors, that it has not ever been operated. That is where they serve a sequestration notice without going to the court. In those cases the tenant has legal redress only when the owner of the property has taken wrong action. Then the tenant can sue for damages for wrongful selling off.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I support the proposed new Clause. The Solicitor-General said the objection to the acceptance of the Clause is not that it is wrong in principle but that it covers only a section of the tenants in the country. As a matter of fact, the present law covers only a section of tenants, those who occupy controlled houses. This Measure is removing a great many more houses from control, but it is in no way altering the conditions of life of the tenants of those houses, whose wages remain the same and whose employment is the same. The only change is that the house is decontrolled owing to the change in the law; and all I am asking is that the man shall have the same protection as he enjoyed when his house was controlled. We say he ought to have the protection of the courts before his goods can be marked and sold in the streets, which is a detestable way of recovering a debt. There have been many instances where a man has owed only £3 or £4 for rent and goods which were worth to him £15 or £16 have been seized, and have not realised more than £3 in the open sale. I have known men who have owed very little rent—just a few pounds—but have lost nearly the whole of their homes because the "bums" have entered and marked their furniture and sold it in the open street. It is from that experience that we are trying to save these people. I cannot understand the attitude of the Solicitor-General. He says, "It is quite all right for the section that has now got control," but complains if we accept this new Clause it will add to the number of people affected. That is the only thing it does. The Solicitor-General has admitted that he agrees with the principle, and says, "Bring in a Bill that will give this protection to every tenant in the country."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I did not say anything of the sort. I said it was conceivable that that view might be taken, but that if any action were

taken on it, it ought to be as part of a general law. I did not say that I approved of it.

Mr. PRICE: I was not endeavouring to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understood from the statement that he made that he had no real objection to the principle involved. What is the objection to the Government accepting this Clause? It is only asking that protection shall follow the man whose house is now to be decontrolled—the protection which he enjoyed before. Surely there is no better way of dealing with a question of debt. If I owe money for rent or anything else, nothing can be fairer than to take me before a court and give me a chance to say why I owe it and to let the court, which can be informed of my circumstances and my ability to pay, fix the amount and say how I should pay. That is better than this ruthless way of "bums" walking into a house and marking a man's furniture and selling it off—maybe selling £20 worth of furniture for a debt of 20s. We have argued all through this Measure that the line of demarcation is too narrow, and that we shall be putting into the hands of the bailiffs thousands of honest, hard-working men who, if they had a debt to meet, would be happy to meet it after an ascertainment made in a court of justice where all the circumstances had been put before the judge. That is all we are asking for in this Clause. Probably our friends in Scotland have not seen this operation of the "bums" entering houses and selling furniture to the extent that we have in England. We have seen it too often in England, and we are anxious to give the tenant the protection to which he is entitled. The Government have put forward such a weak defence that I hope they will reconsider the matter, or we shall have to force this Clause to a Division.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 224.

Division No. 169.]
AYES.
[7.58 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Banfield, John William
Buchanan, George
Edwards. Charles


Batty, Joseph
Cape, Thomas
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Bernays, Robert
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Briant, Frank
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Groves, Thomas E.


Grundy, Thomas w.
Logan, David Gilbert
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Hicks, Ernest George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentins L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Janner, Barnett
McGovern, John
Wallhead. Richard C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Henry Graham


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kirkwood, David
Maxton, James
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Milner, Major James



Lawson, John James
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leonard, William
Price, Gabriel
Mr. John and Mr. O. Graham.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Cnlonei
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Glockstein, Louis Halle
Moreing, Adrian C.


Asthury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shephard


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Goldie, Noel B.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Munro, Patrick


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'fl'd, N.)
Murray-phillpson, Hylton Raiph


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Balniel, Lord
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Nunn, William


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Penny, Sir George


Beaumont, Hon, R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Petherick, M.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boulton, W. W.
Hanbury, Cecil
Pike, Cecil F.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Hanley, Dennis A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l;d., Hexham)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reiner, John R.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Burghley. Lord
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Robinson, John Roland


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burnett, John George
Hopkinson, Austin
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hornby, Frank
Ross, Ronald D.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Horobin, Ian M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cassels, James Dale
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cattley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hurst. Sir Gerald B.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Selley, Harry R.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Joel. Dudley J. Barnato
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cooke, Douglas
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Davies, Maj Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dickie, John P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Donner, P. W.
Levy, Thomas
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Doran, Edward
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spens, William Patrick


Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. C. (Westmorland)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mabane, William
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strauss, Edward A.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Summersby, Charles H.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Falle Sir Bertram G.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thompson, Luke


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fox, Sir Gifford
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Turton, Robert Hugh




Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Withers, Sir John James


Wallace, John (DunferMilne)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noakt)


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Whyte, Jardine Bell



Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Wilson, Clyde T. (Wett Toxteth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wise, Alfred R.
and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on right to possession in certain cases after expiry of principal Act.)

If proceedings are taken against the person who on the day at the end of which this Act expires is the tenant of a dwelling-house to which section one of this Act applies, for the recovery of possession of such dwelling-house or for the ejectment of such tenant therefrom, at any time after that day the court may, in its discretion, from time to time adjourn the hEarlng of such proceedings or stay or suspend execution of any order or judgment therein or postpone the date of possession for such period or periods and subject to such conditions as it thinks proper, provided it shall appear to the court—

(i) that exceptional hardship would be caused to such tenant by the making or giving either of an immediate order or judgment or of an order or judgment for immediate possession or ejectment; and
(ii) that greater hardship would not be caused to the landlord by the increase of the power given by this section than would be caused to the tenant by the refusal to exercise it.—[Mr. Croom-Johnson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is assumed that when the present Bill becomes an Act there will be general belief that the housing shortage all over the country has been overtaken, but it has occurred to some of us that, notwithstanding that fact, there may, in particular districts, be a little pocket, as it were, of housing shortage, or there may be, in regard to one or two individuals, circumstances affecting them which render it inadvisable that the county court should have the task of ordering possession or should be forced to make an order for possession. This Clause has been drafted with a view to meeting that difficulty, which it is felt is bound to arise or is most likely to arise in particular areas. The Clause as drafted follows a Section which was inserted into the Act of 1923 much to the same effect, but this Clause does not go as far as that Section goes.
It is thought, therefore, that if a county court judge has the express power given
to him which this Clause gives, to adjourn the hEarlng of proceedings, or to suspend the execution of any order or judgment which he feels called upon to pronounce, there is the possibility that the exceptional hardship or difficulty, in which the sitting tenant may find himself, may be removed. It is not merely a question of getting a sitting tenant out of possession, but of getting him out in circumstances in which he will feel that he has not been subjected to particular hardship. In order to safeguard that position, words have been added in the Section and Provisos in the Clause on the Paper which embody in their provisions Section 12 of the 1923 Act. The county court judge has to take into account what I may call the rival and competing hardships of small landlords on the one hand and small tenants on the other.
I do not know whether it will be suggested that there is already power in a county court judge, under the rules of court, by which he can, from time to time, adjourn proceedings. It is much more to the point that some express provision should appear in the Act of Parliament, so that anybody who is going to consult the Act to see what the rights of the tenant are can find those rights laid down in the Section. For this reason, I commend the Clause to the attention of the House. I ought to say, before I sit down, that the Section of the 1923 Act is to be found in Part II of that Act, and that Part II of that Act, by virtue of Subsection 6, of Clause 1, of the present Bill, is to be wholly repealed, so that the situation in which we find ourselves is that, whereas in 1923 and up to the present time this House and Parliament generally have thought that some provision of this sort was necessary, when the Acts fiNaily expired, for the protection of tenants in exceptioNaily hard cases, the present Bill makes no such provision, and those of us who have considered this Bill have come to the conclusion that this is a matter worthy of further consideration.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Motion.

8.11 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is true that no provision of the kind intended is made in this Bill, but, as my hon. and learned Friend reminds us, there was a Clause in somewhat more elaborate form, and containing the same sort of provision, in the Act of 1923. It is only right to remind the House of the circumstances in which that was put in. It was put into an Act passed 10 years ago, when the housing situation was far more acute than it is now and when there had been no Marley Committee which had reported that a certain number of houses might safely be taken out of control, a principle which was accepted by this House on Second Reading. The Act of 1923 itself proposed that decontrol should occur in two years from that time. It was with a view to the proposed decontrol in 1925 that those transitory provisions were put into that Act. I am quite sure that my hon. and learned Friend will acknowledge that.
We are here prolonging the existence of the Act, some 10 years later, by another five years certain, and the time to consider what transitory provisions, if any, are necessary to tide over any difficulties which may be outstanding in 1938 or 1939, will be when that time arrives, and not now, by a sort of half repetition of the Clause which was put into the Act of 1923 in the circumstances which I have just mentioned. The Marley Committee reported, and the House subsequently accepted, that a certain measure of decontrol is right for the top-grade house. The House has already accepted the recommendation of the Marley Committee that there should be no decontrol at all in regard to the "C" class of house without any possibility of alteration, unless Parliament directly intervenes again, until the year 1938. I suggest to the House that the time to discuss the transitory provisions is somewhat nearer to 1938 than we are at the present time.

8.14 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: The learned Solicitor-General is always so sweetly reasonable and his arguments are always couched in such persuasive terms that one feels rather doubtful about endeavouring to persuade the House in the opposite direction. I would remind him, when he says that 1938 will be quite
sufficient for the House of Commons to consider the protection of the tenant against harsh or sudden ejectment, that the words in Clause 1 of the Bill provide for the year 1938. The Bill goes out of its way to say "and no longer." It prejudges and anticipates the arrival of 1938, although we do not know what the conditions then will be. It seems reasonable to look ahead in this matter, and to soften the change-over from rent restriction to a free market. The year 1938 is a long time ahead, and it may be that then we may have a House of Commons with a congested time-table and its thoughts on other matters. It seems sensible, when we are considering the whole problem of rent restriction, to take the opportunity of making this very reasonable provision. The landlord is amply protected by the courts of law, and it seems obvious that, when the time comes, after all these years of control, for departing from a system of controlled rents to free markets, there should be reasonable safeguards to protect the tenant from undue hardship. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member will persist in his Motion.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to application of Acts in relation to family of deceased tenant.)

So much of paragraph (g) of Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Act of 1920 as enacts that the expression "tenant" shall, in the case of a tenant dying intestate leaving no widow or being a woman, include such member of the tenant's family residing with him at the time of his death as may be decided in default of agreement by the county court shall not, as respects tenants dying after the passing of this Act, apply to any such member unless he was residing with the tenant for not less than six months immediately before the death.—[Sir B. Gower.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.16 p.m.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When the Bill was in Committee, I moved a new Clause which, in my opinion, would have had the same effect as the present one. My hon. Friend then, while accepting the principle of my proposed new Clause, could not see his way to accept my wording. The Clause has been
re-drafted, and I understand that the Government are now prepared to accept it, so that it is unnecessary for me to deal with the matter at any length. It is sufficient to say that the effect of the proposed new Clause is to ensure that for the future only a relative who has been bona fide residing with the deceased tenant shall be entitled to continue the tenancy.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I beg to second the Motion.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Government are prepared to accept this proposed new Clause, which they consider to be a good one. It carries out the spirit of Section 12 of the Act of 1930, and, that being so, there is no necessity for me to say anything further about it.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rectification of rent books.)

(1) Where the recoverable rent of any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply is determined by any court, that court shall have power, on the application of the tenant, whether in those proceedings or in any subsequent proceedings, to call for the production of the rent book or any similar document relating to the dwelling-house and may direct the registrar or clerk of the court to correct any entries therein snowing, or purporting to show, the tenant as being in arrear in respect of any sum which the court has determined to be irrecoverable.

(2) Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Act of 1920 (which relates to the refusal or neglect of landlords to delete from rent books and similar documents entries purporting to show as arrears sums which are irrecoverable) shall have effect in relation to entries made after the passing of the Act of 1920 as well as in relation to entries made before that date, and in the said Sub-section {2) there shall be substituted for the words "unless he proves that he acted innocently and without intent to deceive," the words "unless he proves that at the time of the making of the entry or of the neglect or refusal to cause it to be deleted, as the case may be, the landlord had a bona fide claim that the sum was recoverable."—[Sir S. Aske.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.18 p.m.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to deal with rent-books which are inaccurate in showing a larger amount of rent in arrear than is in fact the case. There is no power at the present time for any court to order the rectification of a rent-book in such circumstances, and the matter is one of great importance, because in many parts of the country a tenant is unable to get another house as long as he has a rent-book which shows that he is in arrear with rent. The object of the Clause is to enable any court before whom the question of the rent may come to order the rent-book to be rectified in such a case.
Sub-section (2) of the Clause deals with a provision of Section 14 of the Act of 1920 by virtue of which the court of summary jurisdiction may inflict a fine upon a landlord or collector who makes or authorises to be made inaccurate entries in rent-books. At the present time, in Section 14, there are certain words which enable a landlord to escape liability if he proves merely that he acted innocently and without intent to deceive. Those words are inappropriate to the circumstances of these cases, the real point being whether the landlord has a bond fide claim that the sum is recoverable. Sub-section (2) of the Clause provides that, if a landlord proves that he has such a bond fide claim, that will be a defence, but no other circumstance will be a defence. The principle of the Clause was accepted by the Minister in Committee. It has been redrafted in collaboration with the Department, I and I trust that it is now in order.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I beg to second the Motion.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We accept this Clause, and congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it forward. It is obviously unfair that any landlord should be able to enter up a rent-book incorrectly and penalise a tenant whenever he wants to seek other accommodation. The Government have carefully considered the nature of the Clause and the way in which it is drafted, and have pleasure in accepting it.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Duration of application of Acts.)

8.22 p.m.

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 1, line 24, to leave out Subsection (3).
Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, houses which are at the same time dwelling-houses and business premises still enjoy the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts where they fall below £45, £45 and £35 in their rateable value. Sub-section (3) makes one exception from that general rule, and the protection which these hybrid houses enjoy is taken away from licensed premises, so that, although the great mass of landlords in this country will still suffer the disability of having their property controlled within these limits, brewers who hold tied houses will enjoy a protection which no other landlord in the country will enjoy. The case which we desire to put before the Government is that there is no reason at all for giving to brewery companies, as landlords, a protection which no other landlord in this country or in Scotland will enjoy.
I will tell the House the history of this particular portion of the Rent Restrictions Act. Exactly the same point was raised when the Bill of 1923 was under discussion, and, on the 9th July, 1923, when that Bill was before the House, I moved the deletion of a Clause exactly like this one, which deprived public houses of this protection and gave this special privilege to the brewers. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Health, accepted the Amendment, taking the view that there was no reason for giving this privilege to brewery companies if they obtained the advantage of a provision which is repeated in the present Bill in paragraph (e) of the First Schedule. Under that paragraph, in the case of one of these hybrid houses which is partly a dwelling-house and partly licensed premises, an ejectment order will be granted by the county court judge if
the tenant has committed an offence as holder of the licence or has not conducted the business to the satisfaction of the licensing justices or the police authority, or has carried it on in a manner detrimental to the public interest, or the renewal of the licence has for any reason been refused.
That Section was inserted in the Act of 1923 in order to make compensation to
the brewers for the preservation of control in the case of licensed houses. After 1930 the brewers began to move for the entire elimination of licensed premises from the Act, and they submitted written memoranda to two commissions that were then sitting, the Licensing Commission and the Marley Commission. When their case went before the Licensing Commission, verbal evidence was given by Mr. Neville, a director of Whitbreads, and Mr. Holmes, Secretary of the Brewers' Society. It was pointed out to them by the Commission that the protection given by this Clause was really adequate in cases like this and that, in view of the retention of the provision, it would be unfair to deprive licensed premises of a protection which all other business premises enjoyed under the Act. On the 12th November, 1930, before the Licensing Commission Mr. Neville withdrew, as Mr. Holmes had also done, his objection to the continuance of control in the case of licensed premises.
Unfortunately the Marley Commission only had the written evidence of the Brewers' Society. No witnesses gave evidence, there was no cross-examination, and they accepted without hEarlng the other side the ex-parte view of the Brewers' Society, although that view had been formally withdrawn when Mr. Holmes gave evidence before the Licensing Commission. The result is very strange, because you still find on page 16 the retention in some circumstances of this Clause as to ejectment being granted in cases where protected dwelling houses were also licensed houses and where no offence had been committed against the licensing laws and where, therefore, the brewers had some right to ask that their tenants should cease to have protection. That Clause is quite incompatible with the Clause of which I am now moving the deletion because, if, in fact, there is to be entire decontrol of all licensed houses, the Clause on page 16 is quite pointless and inept. There is really no case for the imposition of these penalties on licensees and for the granting of this special privilege to brewers who own tied houses.
There is no more reason now for the Government to insist upon the retention of Sub-section (1) (3) than the Government had 10 years ago when they conceded that there was no need to deprive
licensed premises of the advantage that control gave them. Imagine the case of licensees who have built up a goodwill in their premises and have conducted themselves with complete propriety. In a ease of that sort they have no right under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, to claim any compensation for a refusal to renew the lease or for having added to the value of the goodwill, and this Clause deprived them of any advantage which all other tenants enjoy. They have built up a goodwill and made the house a profitable one, and yet they can be turned out by the landlord at any time without any consideration at all. There are really no grounds for differentiating the case of the tenant of licensed premises from the case of any other tenant. There is really no good ground for giving the landlords of such premises protection which no other landlords enjoy, having regard particularly to the fact that the Clause which is preserved in the Schedule, with a slight amendment, would give them all reasonable rights which they could possibly ask in the event of the tenants misusing their position.
The only ground on which the Brewers' Society made this representation on which this elimination of the existing protection of the tenant was granted was that county court judges were apt to be too lenient with tenants, but that was withdrawn when the Brewers' Society gave evidence before the Licensing Commission, and I think the House will probably trust the discretion, wisdom and experience of the ordinary county court judge. It is an anomalous thing that this special benefit should be given to the brewers. It must have been an afterthought, because the inclusion of the paragraph on page 16 shows that the elimination was not origiNaily contemplated. I ask the Solicitor-General to take into consideration these facts, together with the previous history of the matter, and to have regard to the fact that there has really been no alteration in the experience of this type of property during the last 10 years to deprive tenants of licensed houses who conduct themselves properly of the protection which this House afforded them 10 years ago.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I beg to Second the Amendment.
Apart from the anomalous position of licensed houses, I want to stress an additional reason why it should receive favourable consideration. It is, perhaps, a timely Amendment, because the present Budget has brought about a reduction in the Beer Duty. A great number of the licensees in these public houses have for the past 18 months been weathering a very severe storm from a business point of view. There has been very little question of their ejectment during that period, for the simple reason that the trade has been in such a depressed condition that there have not been a great number of people anxious to relieve them of their duties and take over these licensed houses. But now that there has been a reduction in the Beer Duty, when they may reasonably look forward to an improvement in trade and better times, it seems to me only right and proper that this House should afford this additional method of protection to those who have seen their houses through an extremely difficult time.

8.34 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: An hon. Friend of mine put his name to this Amendment. Unfortunately, he is prevented from being present but I should like to support it, because I think an unanswerable case has been made for it. I do not know why it should be fashionable to single out publicans for specially hard treatment. They are as deserving of consideration as any tradesmen. They have been going through a very hard time during the last couple of years. Receipts have been falling and their difficulties in these tied houses have been great and serious. If they should find themselves turned out of their tenancies, they are going to have as much difficulty as any ordinary tenant in finding a new home and new premises in which they can earn their living and carry on their business. We have to be realists in this matter. We are conscious of the tied-house system. As a rule, publicans throughout the country nowadays are only able to earn a bare living. Life has been hard and difficult, and I cannot see why this special favour should be shown to brewers. I know that the brewers during the last 18 months have had difficulties,
but those difficulties are nothing compared with the difficulties of other business houses, trade organisations, and people who have to earn their own living.
I think that the case which was so ably put by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) is unanswerable. Apparently, when the representative of the brewers was subjected to cross-examination at the Royal Commission on Licensing he did not make his case, but withdrew it. When a proposal is made by the Lord Marley Commission apparently we have to accept it as the law of the Medes and Persians. I cannot understand the extraordinary love and affection of the Government for Lord Marley. He is not a great supporter of them, and does not show great affection for them in another place. We are constantly told that "It is in the Marley Report and therefore we cannot go against it." I have greater confidence in the Government than in Lord Marley. Let them put on their thinking-cap and see that they are about to perpetrate an injustice. Do not let them take cover behind the wisdom of Lord Marley. They have their own intelligence, and the strong case made by one of their ablest, learned supporters in this House must be answered. Indeed, it cannot be answered, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am not sure whether something has not gone awry here. I am not certain that it is the point which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) indicated. There seems to be a distinction between Sub-section (3) of the Clause and paragraph (e) of the First Schedule to the Bill, because I observe that Sub-section (3) of the Clause deals with the case of licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, whereas, when we turn to paragraph (e) of the Schedule we are dealing with a dwelling-house which:
consists of or includes premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, not to be consumed on the premises.
Therefore, at first sight it would appear as though the two provisions were entirely consistent. If you leave out of the Bill,
as Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 proposes to do, premises which are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises, presumably you leave in the Bill premises which are licensed, in whole or in part, for the sale of intoxicating liquors not to be consumed on the premises, and then you would want paragraph (e) of the Schedule. But it has been occuring to me that a great number of licensed premises are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises, and also have a jug and bottle department under which arrangement you may take your drink away and consume it in the privacy of your own home. I am wondering where the Bill or the Act of Parliament stands if you get a house which is licensed for both purposes. According to Sub-section (3) of the Clause, that part of the house which is the jug and bottle department is within the Act, and then you want paragraph (e). If you find a house which is licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor on the premises, the effect is that it does not matter whether it is licensed for the consumption of liquor off the premises I do not know. I do not suppose that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side, who has obviously paid a lot of attention to the problem, knows the answer to the conundrum either. But it is a little hard to find a Sub-section of this sort in a Section of an Act of Parliament dealing with a very important matter, which, apparently, leaves a conundrum of that sort entirely unsolved and unsolvable. For these reasons, I appeal to the Government, either to accept the Amendment, which would have the effect of eliminating all difficulties, or at least to promise us that the matter will receive that further consideration which, I venture in all humility to suggest, it so manifestly requires.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I rise to support what my hon. and learned Friend has just said, and to ask the Minister or the learned Solicitor-General, when he deals with the matter, to give a reasonable explanation why the brewer who has these houses should be put in a more specially favoured position than any other business under the whole of the Bill. I cannot see why, applying this matter as fairly as the Bill tries to do, it should pick out an in-
dustry and give it the benefit of protection which it gives to no other trade or business in any of its provisions. If I am wrong in my construction of the matter, and in viewing what my hon. and learned Friend has said upon the reading of the Sub-section, I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will correct us and tell us where we are under a misapprehension.

8.42 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment for reasons which are stated very conclusively in the various inquiries which have been made into this particular class of controlled premises. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) objected to a certain authority, I am sure that I do not know why. But let me refer be another authority, the authority of Lord Onslow and the Onslow Committee, because in the report of that Committee the reasons for the permanent provisions of the Bill are stated as clearly as they can possibly be stated. I will quote from that report by reading the following passage:
It will be remembered that the jurisdiction of the justices over licensed premises is extensive, and no transfer of a licence is valid without their consent; and, in consequence we think that there is email chance of hardship by eviction being inflicted on a tenant, as the whole Circumstances must come before the justices before the tenant can be displaced. On the other hand, with the Act as at present in force, the licence of the house may be lost or jeopardised through the misconduct of the tenant, and the owner has no power to obtain possession of the premises. We would, therefore, recommend that licensed houses should not come within the scope of the new Act.
That is really the basis of the procedure proposed in the Bill. The point is that there is an alternative method, the method under the ordinary law, by which the protection of the holder of licensed premises is secured by the jurisdiction of the justices. No transfer of the licence is valid without their consent. So that the tenant of the licensed premises cannot be put out of his business without the decision of the court that there are adequate grounds why that should be so. If that is secured in one direction, it is unnecessary to secure it in another.
The answer to the question which was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), as I
am advised, distinguishing between the on-licence and the off-licence, is that the decontrolling provisions refer to the on-licences. In this matter I am advised that the greater includes the less. If there is also an off-licence it will not affect the matter because the determining circumstance is the existence of the on-licence. If there was an off-licence only this provision would not apply. As the hon. and learned Member, with his great authority, has raised the point, I will make sure that the answer I have given is supported by legal opinion on further consideration. That is my provisional answer, subject to further consideration of the interesting point which the hon. and learned Member has raised.

Amendment negatived.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. RHYS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(4) This Act shall not apply to any dwelling-house which is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into and the person for whose occupation the dwelling-house is required by the landlord is, or 1s to be, employed on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural estate.
To a large extent this Amendment was covered in the new Clause which was debated this afternoon, but I want to raise a point on the question of obtaining possession in order to accommodate agricultural workers. Owing to the recent agricultural depression a great many cottages that were origiNaily occupied by agricultural workers, at agricultural rents, are now occupied by workers in other trades, for whom I have greatest sympathy. Should agriculture revive, as we hope it will under the policy of His Majesty's Government, it will be very essential that the workers on the land should be accommodated in cottages which will be comparatively or reasonably near their work. I am bound to admit that on re-reading the drafting of the Amendment it may not entirely accomplish the object which I desire. If the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that this particular point is being considered by the Government, and that it will be dealt with when the Bill goes to another place, I will not detain the
House any longer. It will be very essential should agriculture revive that the owner or occupier of land should be able to house his workers reasonably near their work. I do not think it is quite appreciated to what extent agricultural cottages which were origiNaily occupied by agricultural labourers are now occupied by people who do other work, possibly in towns some way off. I am bound to admit that the wording of the Amendment is unsatisfactory, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate that he will give sympathetic consideration to the point.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think I can satisfy my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with the spirit of his remarks. It must be very annoying for anyone who represents a constituency where agriculture plays a part to find so many urban dwellers coming down and taking cottages that should be occupied by the workers of a particular farm. The Amendment cannot be accepted. We have already gone as far as we think we are entitled to go in making a concession to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) as regards low-rented agricultural cottages. But occupational tenancy has always been put in a special position under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and that position is being continued. The owner of a cottage which is necessary for the working of an agricultural holding has not to prove alternative accommodation; he can go to the court and get possession without proving it. The special privileges accorded to the farmer are being extended under this Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that explanation.

Mr. RHYS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.50 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after the word "is," to insert the words:
by virtue only of the principal Acts.
This Amendment and the next two following are being moved in order to give effect to an undertaking that we gave in
Committee. A doubt was raised whether existing tenants under a contract of tenancy would be affected by the Bill. I stressed the view in Committee that the Bill was so drafted that they would not be affected, but we undertook to make absolutely certain, so that there could be no doubt about it. I think there can be no doubt that these Amendments will give effect to that undertaking. I will read the first portion of the Sub-section as it will stand with the Amendments:
A person who, on the twenty-eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, is, by virtue only of the principal Acts, tenant of a dwelling-house to which those Acts cease to apply as from the following day by virtue of the provisions of this Section shall be entitled to retain possession of the dwelling-house,
and so forth. It is made quite clear that persons under an existing contract of tenancy will not be affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 8, leave out the words "the principal," and insert instead thereof the word "those."

In page 2, line 10, leave out from the word "entitled," to the word "to," in line 14.—[The Solicitor-General.]

8.53 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "three months."
I feel fortified in moving the Amendment by having the support of the London County Council. A special Resolution was moved in the county council supporting the principle of the Amendment that I moved in the Committee stage. In Committee I moved the substitution of six months for one month, but I am now moving the Amendment in a more moderate form in the hope of persuading the right hon. Gentleman to give tenants in a place like London this reasonable protection. It may be said that the passing of this Bill into law will be so noised abroad that the tenants who are to be affected by decontrol will become conscious of their fate. Unfortunately, the proceedings of this House now gain so little publicity that the average citizen going about his daily work is unconscious only too often of what we are doing. For years, rightly or wrongly, tenants have enjoyed the protection of
the various Rent Restrictions Acts. They have gone on believing that they could live in comfort and safety without the danger of disturbance by notice to quit. Now, in 1933, there comes this change. I am assured by the valuer to the London County Council, probably the greatest expert in London, that the provisions of this Clause will affect thousands of middle-class property, a class of house of which there is a great demand at the present time. People engaged in the City who have to live within reasonable distance of their work, will probably find themselves faced with a notice to quit—one month's notice. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever embarked on the unpleasant amusement of house hunting in London, where the field is large and the opportunities small, where the area is great but that mysterious thing an empty house difficult to discover. A man living in Kensington or Paddington, near his employment, who suddenly finds that he has received a most unpleasant thing, a notice to quit, will naturally be terrified and alarmed at the prospect of having to find a new home in four weeks. I suggest that it will be imposing no serious hardship on the landlord to require him to give three months' notice. It is not a big concession; but it would bring comfort to tens of thousands of people in London and in the provincial districts.
I am glad to know that I have the support of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume). On countless occasions we have been in different Lobbies; now we are united in a common bond—the interests of the tenants of London. I am not interested in this matter because my constituency will not be much affected, but in the suburbs of London, in the outlying districts, in Islington, Hackney, Dulwich, Greenwich, tens of thousands of people will be affected. It may be that a case has been made out for this change by the Marley Report, but let us soften the change as much as we can and not make it too violent. We have a great responsibility in regard to the interests of the community, and we should give the tenants a fair deal and a reasonable time to adjust themselves to the new circumstances.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to second the Amendment.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has given such a reasoned argument in favour of the proposal that there is little left for anyone who follows him to say in order to convInce those who were at first doubtful in regard to the position. There can be no question that this is going to work hardship on the landlord. We have been told that we have so far supported one side as against the other, as far as landlords and tenants are concerned. As a matter of fact, we have tried to steer an even course and to act in the most reasonable manner towards both. In this case there can be no hardship on the landlord; and for this reason. In any circumstances the commencing date at which the landlord can obtain possession is in September and, therefore, if he has to make up his mind as to whether he wants possession or not he has ample time to do so and to give three months' notice if he so desires. If, on the other hand, he wants to wait and rush a notice on the tenant, the tenant may then be placed in a difficult position. Within a month he has to make up his mind whether he will accept the terms which the landlord chooser to impose upon him. I say that the tenant is not getting a fair chance. He will have to search for other terms. He cannot get these terms so easily; it will take him much longer than a month, on the average, to find a suitable place. He will have to face one of two alternatives; either to take a place temporarily or submit to any request which his landlord may impose upon him. That is unreasonable. A reasonable period should be given to the tenant to find suitable alternative accommodation.
But there is something much more important than that. I do not know whether the Minister of Health has considered this point. At the present time it is not certain, in fact, it is very doubtful, whether the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1927 applies to houses which are under control. A house which is let as a dwelling-house within the meaning of the Act may consist, and often does consist, particularly in these higher rated houses, of a house and a shop or business premises—

Sir H. YOUNG: May I assist the hon. Member on this point. There is a specific Amendment which deals with the extension of the rights for compensation under
the Landlord and Tenant Act, which is to be considered when we shall have an opportunity of dealing with that matter. I propose to deal with it in a certain way.

Mr. JANNER: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It makes my argument all the stronger. I knew that this Amendment was being brought forward and I saw that there was a considerable flaw in the Bill as at present presented. May I respectfully suggest the reason is this. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make it clear that the Landlord and Tenant Act does apply in respect of these houses, then one month's notice is absolutely insufficient, because under the Landlord and Tenant Act a tenant has one month within which to give notice, after receiving notice from the landlord, to claim compensation, or to claim a further extension of his tenancy. The landlord then has a month within which to consider that notice, and if one month is not sufficient under this Bill it will mean that the later proviso will become ineffective. The right hon. Gentleman will agree, and I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree, that my contention is correct, and that it is a matter which should receive careful consideration. We are most concerned about it, because many of us feel that the Landlord and Tenant Act should have applied all along to this particular type of house, and are happy to hear that some attempt will be made to meet the point at a later stage. On the ground of reasonableness for the purpose of finding other accommodation, and on the substantial ground that without this allowance the tenant will not be in a position to take advantage of his rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, I submit that the Amendment should be accepted. I would like to sum up by repeating the two points, first, on the ground of reasonableness, that the person shall not be turned out; and on the other hand that the landlord can in no circumstances be placed at a disadvantage. The second point, which is much more important and substantial, is that the Landlord and Tenant Act, if it is to apply to this particular Bill, will not have any force or effect unless this particular concession is granted to us.

9.6 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment
reminded us, we are making a very big experiment in this Bill. Let me recall the sequence of events. We are making a big experiment. We are decontrolling all the "A" class houses. We are doing so on the recommendation of a committee, and with that recommendation in substance this House agreed, for there was no substantial opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill. At the time of the Second Reading there was no such Clause in the Bill as that to which the hon. Baronet is moving his Amendment. We introduced the Clause in Committee in order to make the position of the tenants of decontrolled houses certain and easier. We provided that the tenant is to have a notice, that the Acts shall continue to apply to his tenancy until the landlord gives that notice, and we made a month's notice applicable to all tenancies, whether weekly or quarterly. Then the hon. Baronet comes along and says: "A month is not enough. Give us three months."

Sir P. HARRIS: In Committee I said six months.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And now it is three months that the hon. Baronet wants. The position really is this: We are in the middle of May. Does anyone suppose that tenants of "A" class houses have no idea of what is going on in Parliament? We have extended the earliest date for the operation of this part of the Bill until 29th September, and no notice can expire before that date. It may be assumed that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent before the end of June, and any tenant can therefore find out from any landlord what his position is to be on 29th September. To ask for an extension, first to six months and then to three months, does not really come within the scope of the Clause to which this Amendment is proposed.

9.8 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HUME: I put my name to this Amendment on two grounds; first on merits, and secondly as an act of penance. When my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) moved his Amendment in Committee he stated that he was backed by the opinion of the London County Council. By inadvertence I found myself in the Lobby opposed to him, and from that fact some conclusions might have been drawn which were not correct. As regards the merits, let me say that we are
very grateful to the Government for having introduced the Amendment which they carried in Committee. But it has been felt on the London County Council that a month is scarcely sufficient time. I am not going to argue the case, as it has been fully argued in Committee; but I think we are all agreed that this passing over from one stage to another should be made with as little shock as possible. That being so, I cannot see in what way landlords will be put in a difficult position by having to give three months' notice. It will not affect the date, 29th September, as no doubt this Bill will become an Act in ample time to give three months' notice before 29th September.
There will be a shock; there is no doubt about it, and no argument will get rid of that fact. Thousands will be taken by surprise. If they are given a little more latitude I believe it will help all of us in having to face the situation which will then arise. I know it is quite hopeless to plead the case now, because the Government have already expressed their view on the matter; but still there is room for penitence in another place.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I support this Amendment, because in my opinion the dangers which have been referred to will arise. I think we should concentrate our minds on the reason that will prompt the giving of this notice by landlords. In my opinion the prompting will come from the fact that landlords will realise, as a result of the passing of this Bill, that on 29th September they can demand a different level of rent from that which they are in a position to demand now. So far as the tenant is concerned the receipt of the notice will mean additional rent. If the tenant is not in a position to pay that additional rent because of the wages he receives, it stands to reason that the month will be insufficient. The difficulty of finding alternative accommodation by virtue of this Bill will become even greater than it is now. If a tenant can afford only 10s. a week and under the new conditions 12s. 6d. is demanded, where is the tenant going to find alternative accommodation that will fit his purse? A month is insufficient, even at the present moment, for the finding of alternative accommodation. It will certainly be insufficient under the new conditions that will arise.
During the Committee stage I mentioned that, having regard to the period of the year, greater consideration should be given to the tenant who has to vacate a house because of his inability to pay the rent. By 29th September he will have to find alternative accommodation. No one assumes that a tenant can settle down in alternative accommodation, even if he is lucky enough to find it, within a period that will give him the opportunity to enjoy the festive season as others enjoy it. The period is insufficient because the notice comes at the wrong time of the year to begin with, and it comes at a time when everyone likes to have just that little extra meed of enjoyment and luxury that he cannot afford all the year round. I do not know whether the Minister has considered that point, but I ask that these issues be considered in so far as the industrial communities are concerned. I believe that in 99 cases out of every 100 where notices can be given they will be given, and I believe they will be delayed to the latest possible moment. By such delay the hardship to the persons concerned will be made all the greater. This is a reasonable Amendment. As the learned Solicitor-General has said, this Bill is a new adventure entirely. Because it is a new adventure, and because there is an enormous amount of risk at the back of it, which might mean increased hardship to a very large proportion of the community, I ask the Government to go carefully in case they are backing the wrong horse.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I desire briefly to support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike). The Majority of the speeches on this Amendment have been made by hon. Members representing the London constituencies, and I desire to emphasise the fact that this matter also affects us closely in the provInces and especially in the industrial North. A short time ago when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson) moved an Amendment dealing with the machinery which will be required when this Measure becomes due to expire in 1938, the Solicitor-General took the view that the time to discuss that subject was in 1938 and not now. This Amendment, however, deals with a situation which is going to arise now, and the House ought
to give this Amendment careful consideration. The matter was debated at some length on the Committee stage when those of us who thought the period of one month insufficient, tabled an Amendment proposing to increase the period of six months. We made it clear that we should be satisfied with a compromise of three months; we felt that that would give a reasonable opportunity to these tenants to find other accommodation.
We are now backed in that view by the London County Council whose opinion of Government will surely take into consideration—not as the opinion of individual Members but as the opinion of a body which has great experience in these matters and realises what the

situation will be is the period of one months is not extended. Mention of the London County Council reminds one of the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume). I understood him to say that there might be penitence in another place, but I was always brought up to believe that penitence ought to be exercised here below, and that we ought not to trust too much to any developments that might take place at later stages in our careers. I hope that the Government will give this Amendment further consideration.

Question put, "That the words 'one month' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 60.

Division No. 170.]
AYES.
[9.19 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dickie, John P.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Donner, P. W.
Kimball, Lawrence


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Doran, Edward
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Law, Sir Alfred


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Apsley, Lord
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leckie, J. A.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elmley, Viscount
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lees-Jones, John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Balfour, George "(Hampstead)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Levy, Thomas


Balniel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellin, Major John J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fremantle, Sir Francis
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Blindell, James
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Boulton, W. W.
Goldie, Noel B.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Brass, Captain Sir William
Graham, Sir Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Greene, William P. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Merriman. Sir F. Boyd


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Harold p.(Brtf'd & Chisw'k)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Burghley, Lord
Hanbury, Cecil
Moreing, Adrian C


Burnett, John George
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison, William Shepherd


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hartland, George A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Munro, Patrick


Cassels, James Dale
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Murray-Phllipson, Hylton Raiph


Castle Stewart, Earl
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nail, Sir Joseph


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson. Godlrey (Morpeth)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nunn, William


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Cobb, sir Cyril
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Penny, Sir George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hopkinson, Austin
Percy, Lord Eustace


Collox. Major William Philip
Hornby, Frank
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Cooke, Douglas
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben


Crookshank, Col. C.de Windt (Bootle)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Crosstey, A. C.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Barnard
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Rankin, Robert


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Slater, John
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Smiles, Lieut.-col. Sir Walter D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L (Hull)


Robinson, John Roland
Smith, R. W- (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ross, Ronald D.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ruggles Brise, Colonel E. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Runge, Norah Cecil
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Rutherford. John (Edmonton)
Spens, William Patrick
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stanley, Hon. 0. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Storey, Samuel
Wise. Alfred R.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-



Selley, Harry R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Summersby, Charles H.
Major George Davies and Dr.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Morris-Jones.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thompson, Luke



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mailalieu, Edward Lancelot


Bernays, Robert
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Briant, Frank
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. {Notts., Mansfield)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Owen, Major Goronwy


Buchanan, George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pike, Cecil F.


Cape, Thomas
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mabane, William



Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Sir Percy Harris and Mr. Janner.

9.27 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, after the word "offer," to insert the words "in writing."
This and the next three Amendments are to give effect to an undertaking which was given in Committee. This Subsection of Clause 1 provides that a landlord may give notice to a tenant of a new offer of terms upon which he is prepared to continue the tenancy. As the Clause stood, fear was expressed that the landlord might keep the tenant dangling until the last moment and then by the last words of the Clause be in a position to hold him down to the terms offered. We are now providing that the notice itself is to be in writing and there is to be a statement in writing of the effect of the Clause itself. If the tenant holds over in face of the terms he is offered and without coming to some other agreement,
then and then only is he to be held bound by the terms offered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 38, leave out the word "then," and insert instead thereof the words:
and a written statement that.

In line 41, leave out the word "shall," and insert instead thereof the words:
will by virtue of this Act.

In line 42, at the end, insert the words: "then if the tenant so retains possession he shall be deemed to do so on those terms."—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, at the end, to insert the words:
(6)"Where upon the expiration of such a notice as aforesaid a tenant ceases to be entitled by virtue of this Act to retain possession of a dwelling-house the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, shall apply in respect of the premises as if they had been held under a tenancy terminated by that notice.
The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, introduced an entirely new principle of law in respect of tenants of houses that were used for business or professional purposes, and it had for its object the giving of compensation in certain cases for improvements in the premises by the tenant and for the value of the goodwill that had been created during the tenancy. The object of the Amendment is to bring the same benefit to those who receive a notice to terminate the tenancy of a house in the way provided for in this Bill. Where the tenant has done something during his tenancy that adds to the letting value of the premises, it is only right that he should be given some compensation for what he has done if his tenancy is brought to a conclusion. I hope the Government and the Minister of Health will be able to accept this Amendment, as it is clearly properly applicable to the position of a tenant who becomes dispossessed through this Bill in the same way as it is applicable to a dispossessed tenant under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, which was passed by this House with a full appreciation of all the circumstances. It is not necessary for me, when speaking of an Act of Parliament so well within the memory of the House, to detail the position further. Machinery was set up under that Act to prevent any abuse of its privileges, and I ask the House to extend those privileges to a tenant dispossessed under this Bill as well as to a dispossessed tenant under the Landlord and Tenant Act,. 1927.

9.32 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel sure the House will realise that, in the demand we are putting before the Government, we are asking for justice for very small people who, at great expense to themselves, convert what was a property of low value into a property of considerably higher value to the landlord through their own efforts. Under this Clause the landlord will be able to give notice to a tenant where his property has risen in value through the efforts of the tenant. He can do that without granting any compensation whatever, but if the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, are brought into effect, they will provide for compensation and
at the same time preclude any idea of the tenant taking any advantage of his landlord because the conditions laid down cover almost any point raised. I ask the Government to consider this as a very fair Amendment which will improve and not detract from the Bill.

9.34 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I propose to accept the Amendment. Its purpose is to extend to tenants of shops and business premises held under tie statutory tenancy created under the Rent Restrictions Acts the same rights of compensation on the conclusion of their occupation as are enjoyed by tenants who hold under a contractual tenancy. One futher word of explanation. When the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, was passing through the House, there was something of a conflict of opinion on this point between the two Houses, and as a result of that conflict a Resolution in another place which had the intention of excluding these rights of compensation from the so-called contractual premises was not accepted by this House. As a result of that procedure, both Houses were left under the impression that they had specifically enacted that these rights of compensation should be extended to the occupants of the so-called contractual premises, but, as a matter of fact, the best legal opinion is that both Houses failed of their purpose and that that right of compensation is probably not at present enjoyed by the occupants of those premises. Under those conditions, I think it right to accept this Amendment.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: While agreeing with the establishment of the definite rights of a person under these Acts to come within the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act, I should like to point out that without some further modification, in my view anyhow, of the period of notice being inserted, we shall find ourselves in a considerable difficulty, for this reason, that the Landlord and Tenant Act, quite rightly so far as ordinary compensation is concerned, says that the notice requiring compensation must be made within one month, but there is another provision of that Act which, in my view, deals specifically with the position which may now be created. Sec-
tion 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, says:
Where the tenant alleges that, though he will be entitled to compensation under the last foregoing section, the sum which could be awarded to him under that section would not compensate him for the loss of goodwill he will suffer if he removes to and carries on his trade or business in other premises, he may in lieu of claiming such compensation, at any time within the period allowed for making a claim under the said section, serve on the landlord notice requiring a new lease of the premises at which the trade or business is carried on to be granted to him.
If he serves that notice within two months after the service of the notice, the court may, if it considers the grant of a new tenancy is in all the circumstances reasonable, order the grant of a new tenancy. I tried to point out in Committee that the one month's notice was not sufficient, because I felt that if the Landlord and Tenant Act was going to apply to the case of business premises which came outside the present Acts, a person would have to have similar facilities as far as his notices were concerned to those of one who was placed in a similar position outside the Acts before this provision was accepted. I may be wrong, but I should like an explanation of it, because, if I am right, the matter ought to be put right somehow, and the provisions which have now been accepted should be made effective.

9.40 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The effect of accepting this Amendment will be that the rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, if and where they are greater or more extensive or more favourable to the tenant than the rights under the main Act, will rule. I shall be very happy to consider the point which the hon. Member has suggested, in order to make sure, but I am advised that there is no doubt as to the effect of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 3, line 1, to leave out "Subsection (6)."—[Mr. Janner.]

9.41 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: Under Part II of the 1923 Act provisions were made whereby, after the expiration of the Acts, certain circumstances were taken into consideration and opportunities given for the
courts to decide whether or not tenants should be turned out. I understand that a concession has been made at an earlier stage with regard to an Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend with regard to an Amendment that he has moved, and in those circumstances I do not suppose that all the arguments in the world would convInce the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health to extend that concession. In these circumstances, I shall not call upon him to reply to this Amendment, and I do not move it.

CLAUSE 2.—(Certain dwelling-houses not to be excluded from principal Acts.)

9.42 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out the words, "Subject as hereinafter provided."
This Amendment, together with the next Amendment on the Paper, if carried, would leave the Clause reading as follows:
Section two of the Act of 1923 (which provides for the exclusion of dwelling-houses from the application of the principal Act in certain cases) shall cease to have effect.
It will be seen, therefore, that the point of these Amendments is to place category "A" and "B" houses in the same provision as category "C" houses. We have always objected to the principle of decontrol by a process of tenants leaving houses one by one. We think the principle has been entirely wrong from the start, and we believe that not only the Government's arguments in Committee, but the submissions of the right hon. Gentleman are equally unconvincing. He listened to the hon. Member for White-chapel (Mr. Janner), who put up a splendid case, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), with whom, for the first time in 10 years, I found myself in agreement on the Second Reading of this Bill. In the provInces, for houses whose rateable value is between £13 anl £35, decontrol by a gradual process continues unless this Amendment is accepted, and we feel that that is inflicting a hardship upon the section of the community who are suffering, perhaps, as badly as the most depressed and demoralised section of the workers inside category "C." It comprises clerks, civil servants and professional men, many of whom are suffering
from the long-drawn-out period of depression and have no unemployment benefit and no means of visible substance. Because they happen to occupy a house in the provInces the rateable value of which is in excess of £13, and leave the house, the house becomes decontrolled and the powers of the landlord become supreme.
The right hon. Gentleman has evidence that the tendency is to increase rents despite all the building of the last 10 or 12 years, and that may very well inflict a hardship on the class of tenant who may be driven to occupy one of these houses because employment may be available for him in the district. The right (hon. Gentleman is aware that in 14 months 50,000 of this type of house have become decontrolled, and he has evidence of the increases in rents. In five years time, on the same basis, 240,000 more similar houses will become decontrolled. I do not think that the owners of property in Class "B" are any less damaged than the owners in Class "C." If undue hardship is inflicted on one section, it quickly reflects itself on other sections and to allow a gradual decontrol of Class "B" while there is a shortage of houses, may inflict a hardship on those resident in Class "C." Assuming the pressure moves from Class "B" to Class "C" in a large number of cases and the owners of property in Class "B" finds the tenants go to Class "C," the number of vacant houses would be such that the tendency to increase rents would not be there, and the process would even itself out in time. I do not think that experience has shown that to be the case, however.
The next argument which the right hon. Gentleman uses is that this gradual process has gone on for about eight years; that there have been few complaints, and that a process that has been satisfactory in the past will be satisfactory in future. In 1931 my salary here was £400 a year, Since when it has been reduced by £40, but the right hon. Gentleman must not tell me that on the basis of the reduction there is the same amount of fairness and equity. Because a thing happens to be, and because it was superimposed, it does not follow that it is fair or equitable; and because this gradual process has been in operation for eight or nine years, that is not a fair basis for calculating what, after all, is a very deli-
cate and difficult problem to a large number of people. The process of decontrol in certain categories has created every kind of anomaly. Imagine an employer changing officers from one office to another, moving one from Manchester to Liverpool and another from Liverpool to Manchester. These two persons are living in houses in excess of £13 rateable value, and the houses become decontrolled when the officers leave them. If by a Colncidence the two officers were to exchange houses as well as districts, both would have to pay an increased rent because under the terms of the Bill there would be gradual decontrol. The employer will not pay an increased wage because of that decontrol.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have always opposed the principle of gradual decontrol. Control first came because there was an accepted shortage of houses in all categories. It may be that the provision of house in the highest categories, "A" and "B", proportionate to the number of people who would reside in them, has been in excess of the provision in the lower categories. Until, however, the general need for houses of all kinds has been met, we think that it would be far better and much more consistent with fair play to all sections of the community to accept this Amendment. It would be fair to all sections of the community, including the fairly well-to-do professional man, who may now be unemployed through no fault of his own. There are, for instance, hundreds of architects for whom there is no work and who can find no opportunity to display their merits. People of that type would suffer acutely if they fell victims to this gradual decontrol. The general principle of gradual decontrol is at stake in these two Amendments, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us, regardless of what the Committee reported, and as the result of the experience of 1933 and not of 1931, that he has considered sympathetically the plea that we have put forward.

9.52 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The House, of course, apprehends that this Amendment, so persuasively proposed by the hon. Member, strikes at the very root of the main principles of the Bill and is designed, indeed, to destroy it. The effect of the Amendment would be to cease the gradual
decontrol of the "B" class houses, which has been in progress for eight or nine years, quite regardless of the general principles at the basis of the Bill. What are these houses? They are those which were described as the middle range of small houses, combining both houses to let and houses to sell, and it is the type of house which has been most freely provided by the municipalities and from which the class of municipal tenant is largely drawn. The basic principle of the Bill is to let decontrol go pace by pace with the supply, so that as the supply is equal to demand there shall be decontrol. The result of the careful statistical investigation by the Committee of this class of house was to come to a conclusion which is perfectly well based.
The conclusion was that the supply of those houses has kept pace with the demand at about the same rate as the gradual decontrol which has been in progress for some years. So that by allowing that process of gradual decontrol to be continued, we should not be running the risk of a situation in which there would be a supply unequal to the demand and a mischievous rise of rents against the tenants of decontrolled houses. In those circumstances the Committee came to what is, I think, the perfectly natural and common sense conclusion that the right thing to do is to allow the gradual decontrol of "B" class houses to continue.
Let me mention two additional strong reasons for this proposal. The first is that it is the basis of our approach to this difficult problem that the more we encourage decontrol, when it is safe to do so owing to the adequacy of the

supply, the more we encourage the investment of private Capttal in the supply of that class of houses, and the more we benefit the tenants of such houses, because it will lead to a fall in rents. In the interests of the "B" class tenants themselves, therefore, the best thing we can do is to let decontrol go on. The other circumstance is that it has been powerfully argued in a certain quarter that there is a certain danger in decontrol of such houses all at once, and that the more we can avoid single occasions upon which we decontrol a block of houses the better for landlords and tenants. There is a great advantage to be gained from allowing the process of decontrol to be gradual, as far as it is possible, and that is no doubt what the Committee had in mind, and it is what the Government now have in mind, in this proposal. It is making provision that over as wide a range as is safely possible the process of decontrol shall be gradual, avoiding the shock of decontrol of whole classes all at once at specific dates. For these reasons I think the case for permitting the gradual decontrol of "B" class houses to continue is quite unshaken by the arguments advanced against it, even in the form in which they have been put forward just now by the hon. Member. The structure and the whole of the basis of the Measure and the facts of the case require the maintenance of this provision.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 46.

Division No. 171.]
AYES.
[9.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Blindell, James
Cassels, James Dale


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Castlereagh, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Borodale, Viscount.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Boulton, W. W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Apsley, Lord
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Braithwaite, Maj. A.N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Colfox, Major William Philip


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Colman, N. C. D.


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Conant, R. J. E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Cooke, Douglas


Barrie. Sir Charles Coupar
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Crookshank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portim'th.C.)
Burghley, Lord
Cross, R. H.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burnett, John George
Crossley, A. C.


Bernays, Robert
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Robinson, John Roland


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Dickie, John P.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ross, Ronald D.


Doran, Edward
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Kimball, Lawrence
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A,


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Runge, Norah Cecil


Eastwood, John Francis
Law, Sir Alfred
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lees-Jones, John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Levy. Thomas
Selley, Harry R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Llewellin, Major John J.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Fox, Sir Gifford
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Slater, John


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mabane, William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McKie, John Hamilton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Goldie, Noel B.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sotheron-Estcourt Captain T. E.


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Comrmander Archbald R.J


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Greene, William P. C.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spens, William Patrick


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. F, G. (Westmorland)


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Storey, Samuel


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, Edward A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick
Thompson, Luke


Hanley, Dennis A.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hartland. George A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nunn, William
Train, John


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Penny, Sir George
Turton, Robert Hugh


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wallace, John (DunferMilne)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pike, Cecil F.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Watt. Captain George Steven H.


Hopkinson, Austin
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hornby, Frank
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rankin, Robert
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ray, Sir William
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wise, Alfred R.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Remer. John R.
Young, Rt. Hon Sir Hilton (S'v'noaki)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.



Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Major George Davies and Lord


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Erskine.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Coven)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Briant, Frank
Halt, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Nathan, Major. H. L.


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Owen, Major Goronwy


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglessa)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, after the word "apply," to insert the words:
as from the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.
My reason for raising this point is, that, owing to the fact that the Bill is likely to come into operation shortly, there is a good deal of forestalling in regard to the measures which are coming into force. The matter is one of considerable importance, and hon. Members will realise that that is so when they hear the type of letter which is to-day being sent by some landlords to their tenants in respect of this Bill. I have a copy of the letter, which reads:
We have been instructed by your landlord to refer you to his previous offers of compensation for vacant possession of the house you occupy as above, and as you are aware, the new Rent Bill is at the moment being passed through Parliament and will come into operation early this year. Immediately this Act has been passed all offers of compensation will definitely be withdrawn"—
That is underlined and in Capttal letters—
Therefore, if you think you would be able to take advantage of this last opportunity"—
I should be much obliged if hon. Members who are making so much noise would give me an opportunity to state the reasons for my Amendment.

Mr. RHYS: We are trying to find the hon. Gentleman's Amendment on the Paper.

Mr. JANNER: I am exceedingly sorry. That is my fault. It is a manuscript Amendment which is being moved with the idea of throwing the operation of this Bill back to December, 1932, so that there should be no forestalling. I was reading a letter which, in my view, was a very serious letter, and one which I believe the House will realise should be taken into consideration when coming to a conclusion about the Amendment I am now proposing. In those circumstances, I shall continue to read the letter. It says:
Therefore, if you think that you would be able to take advantage of this last opportunity of receiving a substantial amount of compensation for possession, please let us hear from you at once."—
That is underlined—
We might add that we are instructed that any reasonable sum will be given pro-
viding you agree to move out within six or eight weeks' time. On hEarlng from you, one of our representatives will be pleased to call, by appointment, on you any time during the day or evening if you will kinaly telephone"—
Then they give a number—
or write us on the matter. If it will be more convenient for you to call here …perhaps you will drop us a postcard.
That is a very serious thing. This letter, which is a cyclostyled document, has been sent to a large number of tenants by the individuals who sent it to the person whose name is on this letter. I am sure that no hon. Member will desire to make himself a party to enabling action of this description to be successful with regard to tenants. I am given to understand that quite a number of speculators are adopting a course of this description. The result is that a layman who does not understand what his position will be, and who might consider a very small amount to be reasonable compensation, would be beguiled into accepting that compensation and consequently losing the benefit of the Acts. A greater trouble will arise, because if an individual accepted compensation in that way, the house would be taken out of the provisions of the Acts, in so far as it would come into the possession of the landlord prior to the operation of this Bill and so a large number of houses might very easily be taken out of the scope of this, Measure.
In view of that, I think that I was justified in saying that this is a serious matter, and I hope that the Government will appreciate that this type of thing is happening and that they will nullify the effect of such action by people who desire to take advantage of the position. I am sure that the Government will forgive me in reminding them that they were very concerned about forestalling in another connection, and that they took such measures as in their wisdom they thought fit to prevent it. There is quite as much cause for precautions to be taken in respect of forestalling in these circumstances. I do not think that any further argument is necessary to convInce hon. Members that the Amendment should be supported, and that speculation of the description to which I have referred should be stopped as speedily as possible.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Whiteehapel (Mr. Janner) will need a lot more argument to convInce us that it is justified. In the first place, I have a very great objection to any form of retrospective legislation. The Amendment would be introducing recontrol of houses which have been automatically decontrolled last December. What is the matter with August, September or October? If you are talking of houses that are to come back into control, why not go back one year, five years or 10 years? I see no reason for drawing a distinction. If you recontrol a house which has become decontrolled even within the last four or five months, you will very often do injustice to someone. New rights have been created in respect of decontrolled houses, and to recontrol them now would upset some of those rights.
The hon. Member talks about forestalling as though all that the landlord had to do, when he knew that we were going to pass this Bill, was to get the tenant out. There is, however, no analogy between forestalling here and forestalling in the case of import duties. You cannot get a tenant out, even under the present law, without the usual procedure of going to the court, and you can only go to the court on specified grounds which are well known to everyone. I do not think, therefore, that that argument will hold water. We are very much opposed to this form of retrospective legislation, which, indeed, was rejected by the whole of the Marley Committee, on which, it may satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) to know, there was a distinguished Liberal in the person of Sir Ernest Simon. For the reasons which I have given, the main one of which is the retrospective character of the proposal, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

10.17 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am considerably surprised by the speech of my hon. Friend, who also was, and, I suppose, still claims to be, a Liberal. He claims to be greatly concerned that injustice should not be done, but, after all, the weakest party to the contract in these cases is generally the tenant, and all that we want to do is to get reasonable pro-
tection for him. As I have said already, the average occupier of a house, unfortunately, is not conversant with all the intricacies of legislation that passes through the House of Commons. He hears vaguely that his occupation of a particular property is in danger; he is naturally nervous; and then he receives an alarming letter of this character. What concerns me most about this letter is that it is a circular letter—it is "roneo'ed." It has obviously been sent broadcast by a very clever and apparently very experienced firm of estate agents and valuers. I do not know why we should be bashful about mentioning the name of the firm. I do not want to give them a free advertisement, but I am quite prepared to hand the letter to the hon. Gentleman. There is no question about its genuineness, and there is no doubt about its purpose. The purpose is to alarm, to intimidate, to bring pressure upon, the tenant of particular premises to give up the rights which he has under previous Acts of Parliament to reasonable protection under the law.
The hon. Gentleman asked, Why not go back two, three, four or five years? I will tell him why. Because we are reasonable, practical people, and we are dealing with this particular Bill which is before the House. All that we are asking—it is nothing revolutionary or violent—is a reasonable concession to protect the right of tenants, which has been given to them deliberately by the House of Commons, to reasonable protection because of the shortage of houses in most of our great cities. As a matter of fact—and too much publicity cannot be given to it—there are in this letter statements which are really against the facts of the case, because it rather suggests that the tenant has no rights under this Bill. He has some rights, but it is quite clear that, if he takes compensation now in anticipation of the dangers that he may suffer in the future, those rights will be lost. I hope the Minister will be more sweetly reasonable than the less experienced Parliamentary Secretary when he has seen this letter. I do not think it is the kind of document that should be sent to tenants. I think the right hon. Gentleman has a great obligation to insert some words to protect tenants against circulars of this most undesirable character.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 259.

Division No. 172.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, Gabriel


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edwards, Charles
Kirkwood, David
Rea, Walter Russell


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Laweon, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
White, Henry Graham


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)



McEntee, Valentine L.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, Thomas E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Janner and Mr. Briant.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Cross, R. H.
Hornby, Frank


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Crossley, A. C.
Horobin, Ian M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Apsley, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Aske, Sir Robert William
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dickie, John P.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doran, Edward
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Ker, J. Campbell


Balniel, Lord
Duggan, Hubert John
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Eastwood, John Francis
Kimball, Lawrence


Bateman, A. L,
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leckie, J. A.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Lees-Jones, John


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Levy, Thomas


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Llewellin, Major John J.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Borodale, Viscount.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Boulton, W. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lymington, Viscount


Brass, Captain Sir William
Goff, Sir Park
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Goldie, Noel B.
Mabane, William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Sower, Sir Robert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Brown,Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd. Hexham)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (Cmb'rl'd, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Greene, William P. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McKie, John Hamilton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Burghley, Lord
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burnett, John George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Butt, Sir Alfred
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cassels, James Dale
Hanley, Dennis A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington. E.)
Harvey, George (Lambeth.Kenningt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Colman, N. C. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Conant, R. J. E.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsf'd)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Cooke, Douglas
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Munro, Patrick


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Murray-Phllipson, Hylton Raiph


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tate, Mavis Constance


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nunn, William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thompson, Luke


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Penny, Sir George
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Percy, Lord Eustace
Savery, Samuel Servington
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Perkine, Walter R. D.
Scone, Lord
Train, John


Petherick, M.
Selley, Harry R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnttaple)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Wallace, John (Dunfernniine)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Slater, John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midiothian)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rankin, Robert
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ray, Sir William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Soper, Richard
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Remer, John R.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxtetff)


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spens, William Patrick
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Winterten, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rosbotham. Sir Samuel
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wise, Alfred R.


Ross, Ronald D.
Storey, Samuel
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Strauss, Edward A.



Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Captain Austin Hudson and Mr.


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Blindell.


RuthErierd, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.



Question put, and agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after the first "court," to insert the words "of the district in which the house is situated."
The purpose of the 'addition of these words is merely to define the courts in which certain proceedings are to be taken. I understand that there is not likely to be objection to the Amendment, and in the circumstances I will not occupy the time of the House.

Mr. RHYS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG: I propose to accept the Amendment.
It is not the intention that litigants should run about all over the country hunting for a court. The Amendment will help to make that more clear.

Amendment agreed to.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. RHYS: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that this Section shall not apply to any dwelling-house which at the date of the passing of this Act was in the actual occupation of the landlord or, if occupied by a tenant, was so occupied solely as a service tenancy.
I move the Amendment in order to clarify the position. The Clause deals with the registration of houses, and whether in certain circumstances the
houses should be registered as decontrolled or not. Correspondence on the point has taken place between the Ministry of Health and certain organisations. In reply the Ministry have given an interpretation of the registration provision of Clause 2, which may be a correct interpretation, but I am informed that a considerable body of legal opinion does not accept it as the real interpretation. I should be very much obliged if my hon. Friend will assure me that there can be no possible doubt as to the interpretation of the Bill in this connection.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no possible shadow of doubt that both the owner-occupier and the owner of service tenancies are excluded from the Bill. If he will look at Clause 1 he will find that the principal Acts only apply to those dwelling-houses to which they applied at the date of the Act. That means that every decontrolled house that was let at the passing of the Act, every owner-occupied house, every vacant house, was excluded from the Act. The operative word is the word "let." The house which is owner-occupied is right outside the Bill altogether and there is no need for registering. As regards service tenancies, that is governed by the decision of the courts in 1928 that a service tenancy is always in the possession of the landlord, and, being in the possession of the landlord,
it is never controlled. I hope I have satisfied my hon. Friend.

Mr. RHYS: In view of the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 12.—(Application to Scotland.)

10.37 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Altchison): I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, to leave out the word "seven" and insert instead thereof the word "eight."

This Amendment is purely verbal.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 12, line 12, leave out the word "ten" and insert instead thereof the word"thirteen."—[The Lord Advocate.]

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
(g) In determining for the purposes of the First Schedule to this Act whether any rent lawfully due from a tenant has or has not been paid in any case where the rent is payable in advance, any sums paid by the tenant in satisfaction of a decree or decrees for rent and expenses shall, if the action in which any such decree was obtained, was raised before the expiry of the period in respect of which the rent sued for was due, be imputed wholly to rent and not to expenses;
(h) Where the landlord of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply and of which the rent is payable in advance raises any proceedings for recovery of rent or for removing or ejection before the expiry of the period for which the rent sued for or, in respect of the non-payment of which removing or ejection is craved, is payable, the court shall not award any expenses to the landlord unless it considers it reasonable to do so after consideration of the whole circumstances of the case, including any offer made by the tenant prior to the bringing of the proceedings, to pay the rent by instalments.
In Committee the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) raised the question of forehand rent in Scotland, which is a system which has prevailed there in recent years. Hon. Members who spoke on the matter pointed out, quite truly, the great hardships which were in many cases associated with the system, and I undertook on behalf of the Government to give consideration to the matter and to endeavour to put something on the Paper which might go some way in the
direction of mitigating any hardships there might be. The result is the Amendment now on the Order Paper. Let me explain in a few words its effect. The effect of the present system is this. Suppose an action is brought by a landlord for rent against a tenant and he obtains judgment for rent and expenses. Then the tenant makes a payment on account of the judgment. Under the system which prevails now the landlord can take that payment on account and put it against expenses. If the Amendment is accepted we are altering that so that in future any payment made by a tenant under a judgment for rent and expenses must be put by the landlord against rent and not against expenses.
The important practical consequence of that is that you prevent the accumulation of arrears of rent. By providing that these payments must be put against rent and not against expenses you are preventing what is now happening—an accumulation of arrears of rent by the tenant, with the result that a tenant never clears his rent at all. We think that is all wrong. Accordingly, we propose to alter it by paragraph (g) of the Amendment. The House will understand that this Amendment is only to the application Clause of the Bill to Scotland, but it is to be related to the First Schedule to the Bill, which provides that the court shall have power to make an order for recovery of possession in certain circumstances. If you require that payments made by a tenant are not to go to satisfaction of expenses, but only to payments of rent, you are helping the tenant materially to get rid of arrears and are giving him a distinct and just advantage.
The intention of paragraph (A) of the Amendment is this: At the present time under the system of forehand rent, which means rent payable at the beginning of a term before possession is had by the tenant, a landlord may often bring action for payment of rent, if the tenant defaults, on the very first day or the second day of the term, or within a week of the beginning of the term. In many cases that results in very great hardship. From inquiries we know that in many cases tenants are able to pay during the currency of the term if they get time. They may be able to pay by instalments, but are quite unable to pay the full rent at the beginning of the term. Accordingly
we provide that where an action is brought for forehand rent before the term in respect of which the rent is payable has expired, the court shall not award any expenses to the landlord,
unless it considers it reasonable to do so after consideration of the whole circumstances of the case, including any offer made by the tenant, prior to the bringing of the proceedings, to pay the rent by instalments.
That means that if the landlord brings an action for payment of forehand rent before the tenant has enjoyed possession, the landlord is not to get his expenses unless the court expressly declares that in all the circumstances, including any offer made by the tenant, it is reasonable that the landlord should get those expenses. I cannot help thinking that that will be a very salutary check upon actions which should not be brought. In the City of Glasgow last year there were no fewer than 13,000 actions for payment of rent, and the great Majority of those actions were for payment of forehand rent. I cannot believe for a moment that all those actions were justified. Accordingly I hope that this Amendment will be accepted without a division. Forehand rent in Scotland is a comparative innovation. It is extremely doubtful if it should ever have been sanctioned by the law. Unfortunately it has been sanctioned for a period of years. We now propose this Amendment in order to afford tenants some measure of protection.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: While thanking the Lord Advocate for the efforts which he has made to meet the view put forward in the original Amendment on this subject I should like him to clear up one or two points. It is true that the first paragraph of the Amendment will help considerably in preventing tenants from being summoned oftener than is justified. A custom has grown up of the owner or factor taking some of the instalments paid in these cases as instalments towards the legal costs of the action, which means that the arrears run up considerably higher than they ought to go. If the costs of the action are to be left over until the instalments actually meet the arrears for which the tenant is summoned, it will assist in mitigating some of the evils which arise in sheriff courts in Glasgow where so many of these actions are being heard. The second paragraph
may meet the point which we have tried to bring before the House. The deterrent which the Lord Advocate suggests seems quite a good deterrent if it. operates in the way he anticipates. I do not think there is a factor, or house-owner, or estate agent in Scotland likely to bring an action against a tenant who has fallen slightly behind with his payments towards advance rent, if he realises that when he brings that tenant into court there is a considerable element of chance as to whether he will be able to get expenses or not.
A tenant in Scotland may be under an advance rent of £1 6s. per month. He may go for a day or two without paying that sum and find himself summoned. The court then awards expenses ranging from 6s. 8d. to 13s. 4d., and that amount is added to the £1 6s. rent against the tenant, although he may have occupied the house for only six days or so of the period for which he is being asked to pay. That hardship has grown up in recent years, and it will have to be stopped sooner or later. I hope that this paragraph is going to stop it. As the Lord Advocate has said, in the Glasgow courts alone last year we have had 13,000 actions for arrears of rent, many of which were for airears or supposed arrears of rent in advance which is called forehand rent. That shows the position which we have reached in Scotland in this respect. If we take an average of 6s. 8d. expenses in each of these 13,000 cases, this proposal will mean a saving to the tenants of between £2,000 and £3,000 during the next year. That money will remain in their pockets instead of going into the pockets of house factors or lawyers for legal expenses. I would like the Lord Advocate to say how this provision is calculated to operate while the month for which the rent in advance is claimed is still running. Will the amount sued for be looked upon as arrears while the month is running or will it not be regarded as arrears until the month has expired and will it then be added to any other arrears into which the tenant may have fallen?

10.50 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the Lord Advocate one question? Will this provision which he has made avoid the factor being given the power to sue the
tenant for rent in advance? 1s rent in advance still to be considered as arrears?

10.51 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: There is nothing in the Clause to prevent the landlord bringing an action for rent payable in advance—forehand rent. Of course, if he is not going to get his expenses, he is very unlikely to do so, because it would mean he is out of pocket through taking action. As regards the point raised by the other hon. Member, the position is that anything a landlord may recover under his decree for rent and expenses must go against rent, and not against expenses. The result is there will be no accumulation of arrears of rent.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Possession or Ejectment without proof of Alternative Accommodation.)

10.52 p.m.

Sir R. ASKE: I beg to move, in page 16, line 11, after the word "that," to insert the words:
the overcrowding could have been abated by the removal of any lodger or sub-tenant (not being a parent or child of the tenant) whom it would, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the question whether other accommodation is available for him, have been reasonable to remove, and that.
This Amendment refers to the Clause in the Bill which enunciates a new principle in this legislation, in as much as it gives to the court power to give possession to a landlord in certain cases where there is overcrowding by the tenant. The Clause, as drawn, will operate somewhat harshly in various cases, particularly where there is a shortage of housing in the locality. The Amendment was accepted in principle by the Minister when the Bill was in Committee and has been re-drafted. As it now stands, the right of the court to give possession in these cases is limited to cases where the overcrowding is due to a lodger or subtenant other than a parent or child of the tenant, and it will not operate unless there is reasonable alternative accommodation which can be provided for the lodger or sub-tenant.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Earl WINTERTON: Do I understand from the speech of the hon. Member that the Government accept the Amendment?

10.54 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The Noble Lord anticipated me. This Amendment was fully discussed in Committee, and on that occasion I undertook to accept the Amendment in principle. After discussion of the actual words of the Amendment, the difficulties that had occurred have been solved by the adoption of the present form of words and the Government propose to accept the Amendment. The object of the Amendment has been explained by the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Sir R. Aske). It was never intended that the landlord should obtain possession merely because the tenant's family had increased from three to seven and was somewhat too large by up-to-date standards for the accommodation the landlord had. That was not the kind of case which the provisions of the Bill against overcrowding were intended to meet. The overcrowding it was intended to meet must be caused by lodgers or sub-tenants, whom he ought to and can remove. The provisions of the Bill against overcrowding were never intended to deal with conditions which the sub-tenant was unable to remedy; it was only when he could remedy them that some kind of penalty ought to be imposed for allowing something which he could prevent. Even in the case of overcrowding by a lodger and a sub-tenant, it is not contemplated that possession should be obtainable where it is not reasonably possible for the tenant to remedy the overcrowding without hardship. The Amendment is for this purpose and that is in accordance) with the original intentions of the Bill Those intentions are plain. They are to confine the sanctions and the penalties against overcrowding by the sub-tenant to conditions outside the sub-tenant's family, and, secondly, to confine them to conditions where there is a remedy in the sub-tenant's hands. In those circumstances the penalties provided by the Bill, such as they are, should apply. The Amendment tends to make more clear the intentions of the Bill, and I think we can reasonably accept it.

10.56 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the
fact that this will make it more difficult than now to prevent overcrowding? One of the great difficulties is that the courts refuse to abate overcrowding, on the ground that no alternative accommodation is available. I know of cases where application has been made to the court to abate overcrowding to the extent of 10 people in one room, and the court refused to make an order on the ground that there was no available accommodation in the district. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that point?

10.57 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot help thinking that there is some misapprehension as to the general bEarlng of the Amendment. The provisions of the Bill to ensure action against overcrowding are really unlimited in their intention, in their practical applicability, by the present Amendment. The Noble Lord, I am sure, is a supporter of the main provisions of the Bill to ensure the reduction of overcrowding where it is of an improper nature, and the present Amendment goes no further than is reasonably necessary in order to make sure that the overcrowding against which these provisions are directed shall be of an improper nature. It would, I think, be harsh and improper to visit these penalties against the tenant simply owing to an increase in the size of his own family. I think that would offend the sense of fair play on the part of the House, and I think it would also offend our sense of fair play if some sort of penalty were directed against the tenant for conditions which he had no possibility of preventing. I believe the effect of the Amendment is really to bring the provisions of the original Bill to prevent overcrowding, useful and most important as they are, into clearer relation to what is in accordance with our sense of fair play and also what is practical; and, therefore, they are an improvement of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 12, leave out from the word "taken," to the end of the paragraph, and insert instead thereof the words "for his removal."—[Sir B. Aske.]

11 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I bog to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I trust that we may adjourn now and take the one or two Amendments still to come, together with the Third Beading of the Bill, to-morrow. We understand that the Third Reading is to be over by 7.30, and I believe that there is a general agreement to see that that is carried through.

11.1.p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sure that the House will agree that we have made extremely good progress with the Bill by the co-operation of all parties, and as I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition reasonably expects that we shall get the Third Reading by 7.30 to-morrow, I think that we might adjourn further consideration now.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.2.p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire to say a few words on behalf of my hon. Friends concerning this Bill. I do not propose to detain the House unduly. Hon. Members will know that on two occasions at least we on this side of the House have been associated with hon. Members in other parts of the House in indicating our dissent from the general principle upon which the Bill is founded, and I need only say that we occupy precisely the same position concerning that principle that we have taken up Since the initial stages. We have on previous occasions indicated that the creation of an account of this sort was a somewhat hazardous experiment, but in the present condition of the world financially it would appear to us to be more hazardous to-day than it was even 12 months ago. It is just possible that we are approaching in the next weeks and months a time when that
hazardous position may be even worse than it is now. Let me illustrate it. Recently America has gone off the Gold Standard. For all we know Germany may follow suit in a short time, and it may be that one of those days the fund which we are discussing may be in a somewhat precarious position. However, the Treasury have decided that in their wisdom they will proceed with this proposal, and I need only emphasise once more that we stand precisely where we have done in regard to the principle in the Bill.
I want once again to raise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not a party question, but the question which I have discussed with him across the Floor in previous Debates on this subject. It is a House of Commons question. It is a question as to the control of this fund. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I gather from the cheers that come from other parts of the House that our sentiments are shared by Members in all parties.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that we shall not be able to discuss that question on the Third Reading of the Bill as it is entirely outside the Bill.

Mr. JONES: I submit to you, Sir, that a good reason for not giving approval to the Third Reading is that the conditions under which the Account is being set up do not meet with our approval.

Mr. SPEAKER: That might be a good reason to give on a reasoned Amendment against the Third Reading, but it would not be in order to discuss that point on the Third Reading itself.

Earl WINTERTON: May I submit that it would be in order to ask the Government to give us an explanation as to the measure of control which will be exercised?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I read this Bill, it is one merely to increase the amount of the Account.

Mr. JONES: Of course, I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but may I submit that it is a sound House of Commons view to take that we have no assurance that the increased amount will be adequately controlled on behalf of the House, and that we ought not to part with the Bill until we have that assurance?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question then arises as to how it is to be controlled. There is no question of control in this Bill, so that point must be outside the Bill and therefore out of order.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Would it be in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would be prepared to take certain administrative measures to secure that a report shall be presented to Parliament on certain matters? If he were to decline, it might be a reason for voting against the Third Reading. Would it not be in order at all events to ask whether such administrative measures will be taken?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, that would be in order.

Mr. JONES: Then may I put that question to the Chancellor? The Account was set up last year without any definite provision whereby it should be duly reported upon or accounted for to the appropriate Committee of this House. To-night we are increasing the Account by £200,000,000, and the question I put to the Chancellor is whether there is in his mind at the moment any intention to provide the House of Commons or any Committee of the House with an opportunity for examining the control of the fund? It is well known to the House that there are occasions when such funds have to be treated with great confidence, and I can imagine the Chancellor would feel that he must examine very carefully what arrangements he would make or what machinery he would set up. All I invite him to keep in mind is that it is not a new situation, and that therefore our inquiry as to whether he will provide adequate machinery is not an inquiry in an entirely new situation.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going beyond what I ruled. What I intended was that it would be in order to ask the Chancellor whether he is going to devise any administrative proposals on which this point could be discussed.

Mr. JONES: Then I will content myself with putting that question to the Chancellor, and I hope he will be able to give us a favourable reply.

11.10 p.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I rise to show that the hon. Member is not alone in his request. I am afraid that I shall
not be anything like so skilful in the difficult waters in which we find ourselves owing to the Rules of Procedure. I would remind the House that when we tried to raise this matter on the Committee stage it was also ruled out of order. The Very serious fact emerges that the Government are asking the House by this Measure to increase by £200,000,000 the fund which they started last year, and that through circumstances which have arisen during the passage of this Measure through the House, it has been impossible to discuss any form of public control for that sum. You have ruled that it is in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to provide any administrative means by which some such information could be given to Parliament. I speak, I am certain, for a great many Conservative hon. Members, and, so far as I know, for the Liberal party. I do not often speak for the Liberal party, but on this occasion I know that they are with me in asking the question in the most formal manner possible. I would like to try to rouse the feelings of this House, not against the Government but on a purely House of Commons matter, which I mentioned last year and make bold to repeat again this year, and on the merits of the Bill.
I see a very great difference. Last year, the Government asked for this sum of money for what was admittedly an experiment. They could not possibly see what was to be the result of stabilising the exchange, or of ironing them out for a short period. I have no doubt that the Government were surprised to find that they had made a profit out of the transaction. I submit to the House that, in a matter like this, size is of the very essence of the matter, and what might have been allowed to go through the House last year, in sailing uncharted seas, which no official of the Treasury had ever navigated—in fact, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. S. Samuel) is the only Member who knows anything about this matter at all, and he gives it as his considered opinion that we are doing wrong in accepting this Measure, whereas the hon. Members for the City of London never speak on it—what might have been good in the circumstances of last year is not necessarily the case to-day. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer asks us
to increase the fund by £200,000,000 it means that the grand total will be nearer £400,000,000 than £350,000,000. The original fund was £150,000,000, and the amount now asked for is £200,000,000. That makes £350,000,000. The assets of the Dollar Exchange Fund were put in last year, unless they were absorbed in the £150,000,000. I understand now that they were, although I understood that they were extra. That was the position last year. We are going to put something like £400,000,000 into the hands of the Government of the day—for I do not imagine that this fund is going to be wound up, and the Government of the day, whatever its political complexion, is going to deal with this sum without any reference to us. That is why it is desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should make such a statement as he can make in order to reassure us.
A big thing—if I may put it in this way—is not necessarily a small thing bigger. [Laughter.] May I explain what I mean? The by-laws, for example which are applied to a cottage, are not those which the London County Council impose in regard to sky scrapers. The rules which a dog fancier has for his pekinese are not those for his bloodhound and those which might be very well for £150,000,000 last year, when you did not know what was likely to happen, are not necessarily those which this House will desire to use dealing with a fund for twice that amount. I do not want to stress the point, in view of the ruling which you and the Chairman of Committees gave the other day. The whole history of the House has been the age long struggle of this House against the Crown and, what is now the equivalent, of the executive of the day. The Crown in olden days, and the executive nowadays, naturally, from their point of view, have tried to get all the power and all the control they could, and it is our business as Members of Parliament to see, as Lord Hewart has pointed out in his book "The New Despotism," that such limits as are reasonably possible are set to those powers. I am not asking for anything unreasonable, but only for such control as can reasonably be given to this House at some stage in these proceedings.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has only to answer the question of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan
Jones) in the affirmative—to say that he will take some administrative action, or introduce something into the Finance Bill to deal with the matter—and we shall be satisfied; but, unless he can give us some firm assurance on that point within the Rules of Order which you, Mr. Speaker, have laid down, it will be for the House seriously to consider whether it is prepared to give to any Executive complete control over these vast sums of money. Their apparent object is perfectly clear. It is to try to "iron out," as they say, the exchanges for day-to-day transactions. It may be that they could devise a better way of obtaining the same result. It is only supposed to be an advantage for the trading community, and there may be ways and means of doing it at a far less cost than £400,000,000, which we risk losing entirely if the fund is not adequately manipulated. I do not use that word in a bad sense, but it is the word which is obviously suitable for a matter of this kind.
This, possibly, is one of the most serious questions that the House will have to consider from that aspect. If the right hon. Gentleman asks, "What do you suggest?" my answer is that it is not our scheme, that we did not propose the Exchange Fund, but that the Government and their advisers have proposed this method of dealing with the problem, and it is for them to see whether they cannot, at the express wish of the House of Commons, bring it more into conformity with our desires. It is a simple problem, but, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government can give us some firm assurance with regard to the Finance Bill or some other means which they can devise for dealing with the situation, I should reluctantly be forced to ask my hon. Friends who really care about the control and prestige of this House once again to join issue with the Executive of the day and go into the Lobby against the Third Reading of the Bill.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies, as the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has made references to Rulings given by the Chairman of Committees and myself in reference to this matter, and lest there should be any
misunderstanding that the Rules and forms of the House are inadequate to allow hon. Members to deal with this question in the way that they think they ought, I must point out to the House and to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough that the hon. and gallant Member missed his opportunity—that the time at which that should have been done was on the Resolution on which the Bill is founded. That was the time at which to move Amendments to deal with the question which the hon. and gallant Member wants to raise.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I hope I may be pardoned if I say that I was not questioning the justice of your Ruling, Sir, or that of the Chairman of Committees.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not think that the hon. and gallant Member was, but I thought that it might be thought that the Rules of the House were inadequate to allow him to raise this question. That is not so.

11.19 p.m.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am glad that, through the kindness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) was able to put a question to me which allows me to make some reply on the point which has been raised. If you, Mr. Speaker, had not intervened, I was also going to say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that there was an opportunity at an earlier stage to have moved an Amendment in the sense which he desires; but I do not wish to stress that point, because I take the view that this is not the occasion, and this is not the Measure, which calls for the discussion of the particular point which my hon. and gallant Friend has been putting before the House. This is a Measure simply to increase the resources of the Exchange Equalisation Fund. My hon. and gallant Friend hardly did himself justice when he sought to suggest that we could very well do without House of Commons control when the sum in question was only £150,000,000, but when it came to £350,000,000 some control ought to be introduced, because, after all, £150,000,000 is a very substantial
sum, and it seems to me that if House of Commons control is needed at all, it is needed just as much for the administration of £150,000,000 as for £350,000,000.

Captain CROOKSHANK: My right hon. Friend will not have forgotten all the speeches that we made last year asking for control on that? It was only because there was some form of control in the Finance Bill that we let it go through.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not complaining; I am merely stating my view, that if any control is required, it is required just as much for £150,000,000 as for £350,000,000. My conclusion is that, if control is to be introduced at all, it should be introduced on the establishment of the fund and, as it was not introduced last year, the proper place for them to move Amendments which would have the effect of introducing control is on the Finance Bill. I suppose it would take the form of a new Clause amending the provision in last year's Finance Bill. I am not taking an unsympathetic attitude at all to the desire on the part of the House to keep some control over this very large sum. My difficulty is that I have been unable to find a practicable method of giving control to the House of Commons over the management of this fund which would not publish, not only to the House of Commons, but throughout the world exactly the way in which the fund has been operated. As one of the principal functions of the Exchange Equalisation Account is to prevent the operations of speculators, the way to prevent the operations of the fund is to let the speculators know exactly how we are working it. But I will go further than I did, in saying that Amendments on this subject should be moved in the form of a new Clause on the Finance Bill. I am quite ready to discuss with my hon. and gallant Friend or with any of his friends who are interested in the subject the form of any Clause which they would like to suggest, or how any Clause could be framed which would achieve the object they desire without bringing on us the consequences which I should deplore and which would render the Fund absolutely useless. If between us, with perfect good will on my part, we can devise any kind of control which could not have disastrous consequences of that
kind, I am ready to accept the Clause, but I do not want to mislead the House or to lead the House to suppose that I see my way to any such Clause at present. I cannot see any way of doing it, but I am ready to discuss it, in the way perhaps which would be most practical for the purpose, in a room together, and I will do it, not with the object of finding difficulties but, if possible, of discovering a way to satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. SAMUEL SAMUEL: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he cannot give us some information. He has spoken about speculations in exchange, on which I think he is rather misinformed. I said before that there was very little speculation going on. He says the operations of the Fund would be well known if he gave more information to the House. I should like to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that what the Government are doing is as well known in the City of London as it is at the Treasury. Take the Exchanges. The American Exchange closed on Saturday night at 3.99. It opened this morning at 3.96. At a quarter-past 11 it was 3.94 and at a quarter-past one 3.95. Francs opened this morning at 85⅞ At a quarter-past 11 they were 86⅛ and the same at a quarter-past one. So that they did not vary very much. There was very little gold offering in the morning, and the price was fixed at 123s. 3d. There was only a very small amount in the market. Francs went down slightly, and the Government entered the market and bought them, and the French Government, to counter it, went into the market and bought gold here. There was very little business done in the market on the whole, but the British Government had bought more francs than the French could counter with gold. This is as well known in the City of London as it is in the Treasury. The position now is that we do not know anything at all of the objects of the Government.
I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. There was a rumour this afternoon of an agreement between the Government of the United States, France and London to work together. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) spoke about profit on the first part of
these transactions. We have never seen that profit in the City of London. The hon. and gallant Member said that we might lose the lot. That is impossible, because we always have certain assets, and there can only be a depreciation under which the taxpayer can lose. We wish to know whether there is any agreement to provide for any losses which may accrue in any speculation going on between the three Governments. If it is true that they are working together, will any loss to the Account, when it is closed, if ever it is closed, be shared by the United States, France and England, or

shall we, who are piling up and buying gold and currency, have to bear the entire amount of what is lost?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no such agreement between the three countries. Therefore, the second part of my hon. Friend's question does not arise.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then I take it we shall have to bear the loss.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 237; Noes,. 37.

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[11.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dickie, John P.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Lovat-Frater, James Alexander


Agnaw, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dugdala, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Allan, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lymington, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Eastwood, John Francis
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Apslay, Lord
Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)'


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Everard, W. Lindsay
McKie, John Hamilton


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Balniel, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Bateman, A. L.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Manningham-Bulier, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograva Campbell
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Martin, Thomas B.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Goff, Sir Park
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Greene, William P. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Borodale, Viscount
Grentell, E. C. (City of London)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Boulton, W. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley(Middlesbro',W).
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Morsing, Adrian C.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris, John Patrick (Safford, N.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Brown, Col. D. c. (N'thl'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Nawb'y)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Raiph


Buchan-Hapbun, P. G. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail, Sir Joseph


Burghlay, Lord
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nation, Brigadier-General 1. i. H.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Lesile
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Burnett, John George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William


Campbell, Edward Taswall (Bromley)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Patrick, Colin M.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hore-Ballsha, Leslie
Penny, Sir George


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.


Cayzer. Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Horobin, Ian M.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Howitt, Dr. Alfrad B.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Colman, N. C. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Conant, R. J. E.
Jonas, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rankin, Robert


Cooke, Douglas
Ker, J. Campbell
Rathbone, Eleanor


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ray, Sir William


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rea, Walter Russell


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cross, R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Remer, John R.


Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclasall)


Davidaon, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Robinson, John Roland


Davies, Maj.Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ropner, Colonel L.


Detpencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Ross, Ronald D.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Train, John


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Runge, Norah Cecil
Soper, Richard
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Spens, William Patrick
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Stanley, Hon. O. F, G. (Westmorland)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Storey, Samuel
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Strauss, Edward A.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Scone, Lord
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wise, Alfred R.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Slater, John
Thompson. Luke
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
and Mr. Blindell.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hicks, Ernest George
McGovern, John


Banfield, John William
Hirst, George Henry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
John, William
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Buchanan, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner. Major James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Nathan, Major H. L.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, Gabriel


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [Lords.]

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message [9th May] communicating the Resolution, ' That it is expedient that the Local Government Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, be now considered."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said (Resolution.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.